» Articles » PMID: 24841184

The Effects of Nicotine Dose Expectancy and Motivationally Relevant Distracters on Vigilance

Overview
Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology
Date 2014 May 21
PMID 24841184
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The imminence of drug use (i.e., drug availability) has been found to be related to intensity of drug craving, but its effects on attentional bias to drug cues are unclear. This study investigated the effects of nicotine availability on attentional bias to smoking, affective, and neutral cues in a sample of adult smokers during a vigilance task. At the beginning of each of 4 laboratory sessions, overnight nicotine-deprived smokers (n = 51) were instructed that they would smoke a cigarette containing either nicotine (Told-NIC) or no nicotine (Told-DENIC) after completing the rapid visual information processing task with central emotional distracters (RVIP-CED). The RVIP-CED presented digits at a rapid pace, with participants instructed to respond with button presses to every third consecutive even or odd digit. Some digits were preceded by smoking, pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral distracter slides. During Told-NIC conditions, participants produced significantly longer reaction time (RT) latency than during Told-DENIC conditions. RT sensitivity (d'), a measure of the ability to discriminate true positives from false positives, was significantly lower during the Told-NIC than during the Told-DENIC conditions to targets following cigarette distracters. These results suggest that nicotine-deprived smokers expecting to imminently smoke a cigarette experience greater distraction, particularly to smoking-related stimuli, than when expecting to smoke a denicotinized cigarette.

Citing Articles

The impact of nicotine dose and instructed dose on smokers' implicit attitudes to smoking cues: An ERP study.

Cui Y, Engelmann J, Gilbert D, Waters A, Cinciripini P, Robinson J Psychol Addict Behav. 2019; 33(8):710-720.

PMID: 31657594 PMC: 6888848. DOI: 10.1037/adb0000523.


Belief about Nicotine Modulates Subjective Craving and Insula Activity in Deprived Smokers.

Gu X, Lohrenz T, Salas R, Baldwin P, Soltani A, Kirk U Front Psychiatry. 2016; 7:126.

PMID: 27468271 PMC: 4942468. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00126.


Attentional bias to smoking and other motivationally relevant cues is affected by nicotine exposure and dose expectancy.

Robinson J, Versace F, Engelmann J, Cui Y, Gilbert D, Waters A J Psychopharmacol. 2016; 30(7):627-40.

PMID: 27097731 PMC: 5858186. DOI: 10.1177/0269881116642879.


Emotion regulation in heavy smokers: experiential, expressive and physiological consequences of cognitive reappraisal.

Wu L, Winkler M, Wieser M, Andreatta M, Li Y, Pauli P Front Psychol. 2015; 6:1555.

PMID: 26528213 PMC: 4602105. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01555.


Anticipation of smoking sufficiently dampens stress reactivity in nicotine-deprived smokers.

Bradford D, Curtin J, Piper M J Abnorm Psychol. 2015; 124(1):128-36.

PMID: 25688439 PMC: 4332561. DOI: 10.1037/abn0000007.

References
1.
Juliano L, Brandon T . Reactivity to instructed smoking availability and environmental cues: evidence with urge and reaction time. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1998; 6(1):45-53. DOI: 10.1037//1064-1297.6.1.45. View

2.
WATSON D, Clark L, Tellegen A . Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 54(6):1063-70. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063. View

3.
Carter B, Robinson J, Lam C, Wetter D, Tsan J, Day S . A psychometric evaluation of cigarette stimuli used in a cue reactivity study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006; 8(3):361-9. DOI: 10.1080/14622200600670215. View

4.
Droungas A, Ehrman R, Childress A, OBrien C . Effect of smoking cues and cigarette availability on craving and smoking behavior. Addict Behav. 1995; 20(5):657-73. DOI: 10.1016/0306-4603(95)00029-c. View

5.
Mancuso G, Andres P, Ansseau M, Tirelli E . Effects of nicotine administered via a transdermal delivery system on vigilance: a repeated measure study. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999; 142(1):18-23. DOI: 10.1007/s002130050857. View