Randomized trial demonstrated improved functional connectivity in the executive control and reward networks in IGD patients, indicating potential for non-pharmacological treatment.
BACKGROUND Background: Internet gaming disorder (IGD) causes neurocognitive deficits and brain functional. Traditional interventions require specialists and incur high costs, while progressive aerobic training (PAT) shows more practical. But its effect on IGD and the underlying neural mechanism remains unclear. OBJECTIVE This pre-registered, randomized, single-blind study examined the efficacy of a novel non-pharmacological intervention by elucidating the neurocognitive mechanisms in IGD. METHODS Methods: A total of 72 IGD participants were recruited and randomly assigned to a PAT group or a free training (FT) group. Sixty-four participants completed the experiment (PAT:33; FT: 31), which included pre- and post-treatment fMRI scans and 20 PAT sessions in a month. Regional homogeneity and degree centrality are calculated, and the overlapping brain regions were used as seed points for FC analysis. The correlation between FC and behavioral data and neurotransmitters were also evaluated. RESULTS Results: Compared with the FT group, the PAT group showed decreased addiction severity and craving after the intervention. FC analysis showed that PAT increased the FC within the executive control network (ECN) and between the ECN and the reward network (RN). FC was significantly associated with cannabinoid receptors CB1 and type-5 metabotropic glutamate receptor (mGluR5). CONCLUSIONS Conclusions: This study suggests that PAT is effectively in treating IGD by improving the FC between the ECN and the RN, enhancing the top-down control. These results are supported by the correlation between FC and behavior and neurotransmitters, indicating that PAT is a very promising intervention approach. CLINICALTRIAL The protocol of the trial had been registered at the Chinese clinical trial registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn; ChiCTR2400090834).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cui et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: