Matt Field1, Karin Mogg, Brendan P Bradley. 1. Centre for the Study of Emotion and Motivation, School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. m.j.field@soton.ac.uk
Abstract
RATIONALE: According to recent theories of addiction, nicotine deprivation may influence biases in the orienting and maintenance of attention on smoking-related cues. OBJECTIVES: We examined the effect of nicotine deprivation on different aspects of attentional biases for smoking-related cues. METHODS: Smokers' eye movements to smoking-related and control pictures were assessed during a visual probe task under deprived and non-deprived conditions. RESULTS: When deprived, smokers maintained their gaze for longer on smoking-related than control cues, relative to when non-deprived. Deprivation also increased craving and pleasantness ratings of smoking cues. Across both deprived and non-deprived conditions, smokers were more likely to shift their gaze towards smoking cues and were faster to respond to probes replacing smoking cues, relative to non-smoking cues, but these attentional bias measures were not significantly affected by the deprivation manipulation. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a selective effect of deprivation on the maintenance of attention on smoking-related cues.
RATIONALE: According to recent theories of addiction, nicotine deprivation may influence biases in the orienting and maintenance of attention on smoking-related cues. OBJECTIVES: We examined the effect of nicotine deprivation on different aspects of attentional biases for smoking-related cues. METHODS: Smokers' eye movements to smoking-related and control pictures were assessed during a visual probe task under deprived and non-deprived conditions. RESULTS: When deprived, smokers maintained their gaze for longer on smoking-related than control cues, relative to when non-deprived. Deprivation also increased craving and pleasantness ratings of smoking cues. Across both deprived and non-deprived conditions, smokers were more likely to shift their gaze towards smoking cues and were faster to respond to probes replacing smoking cues, relative to non-smoking cues, but these attentional bias measures were not significantly affected by the deprivation manipulation. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a selective effect of deprivation on the maintenance of attention on smoking-related cues.
Authors: Ronald N Ehrman; Steven J Robbins; Melissa A Bromwell; Megan E Lankford; John R Monterosso; Charles P O'Brien Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Bastian Stippekohl; Bertram Walter; Markus H Winkler; Ronald F Mucha; Paul Pauli; Dieter Vaitl; Rudolf Stark Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Catharine Montgomery; Matt Field; Amanda M Atkinson; Jon C Cole; Andrew J Goudie; Harry R Sumnall Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 4.530