COMMENTS: This study has now been published as, Can Pornography be Addictive? An fMRI Study of Men Seeking Treatment for Problematic Pornography Use (Gola et al., 2017). For relevant research see:
- This page lists 39 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) providing strong support for the addiction model.
- About 30 studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms.
- This list contains 15 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world, supporting the porn addiction model. (This dated paper was not a literature review and misrepresented most the papers it did cite.)
- 27 studies link porn use/sex addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli.
- Almost 60 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction.
MATEUSZ K. GOLA*, MALGORZATA WORDECHA, GUILLAUME SESCOUSSE, BARTOSZ KOSSOWSKI and ARTUR MARCHEWKA
*Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Science, Warsaw, Poland; E-mail: [email protected]
Background and aims:
There is ongoing discussion among therapists and researchers, about how to conceptualize compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) and perform efficient psychotherapeutic intervention. Identifying key brain-circuits underlying CSB can shed light on this issue. In a previous study it has been shown (Sescousse et al., 2013), that pathological gamblers (PG) are more sensitive to monetary compared to non-monetary (in this case, erotic) incentives. This was reflected in shorter reaction times (RTs) and enhanced reactivity of the ventral striatum (VStr) in response to monetary cues (Mc) compared to non-Mc. If the brain mechanism underlying CSB is similar to PG, we should expect opposite results, i.e. shorter RTs for erotic cues (Ec) and blunted VStr response for non-Ec.
Methods:
We tested these hypotheses using fMRI and comparing the brain responses of 6 CSB (data acquisition in progress) and 5 healthy control subjects (HC), while they engaged in an incentive delay task manipulating both monetary and visual erotic rewards (left top in Figure).
Results:
CSB expresses significantly higher sensitivity (shorter RTs) to Ec then Mc (bottom in Figure), what is preceded by higher reactivity of VStr for Ec (compared to HC) during reward anticipation. No blunted response of VStr for non-Ec has been shown in CSB patients (top right in Figure).
Conclusions:
Our preliminary results point to a differential sensitivity to erotic versus non-erotic incentives in CSB patients, but with no blunted VStr response to non-Ec. Slightly different then PG, those results suggest higher CSB preference for Ec with no loss of ability to be stimulated by non-Ec.
;