INTRODUCTION: Cue reactivity paradigms are well-established laboratory procedures used to examine subjective craving in response to substance-related cues. For smokers, the relationship between nicotine dependence and cue reactivity has not been clearly established. The main aim of the present study was to further examine this relationship. METHODS: Participants (N=90) were between the ages 18-40 and smoked > or =10 cigarettes per day. Average nicotine dependence (Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence; FTND) at baseline was 4.9 (SD=2.1). Participants completed four cue reactivity sessions consisting of two in vivo cues (smoking and neutral) and two affective imagery cues (stressful and relaxed), all counterbalanced. Craving in response to cues was assessed following each cue exposure using the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges-Brief (QSU-B). Differential cue reactivity was operationally defined as the difference in QSU scores between the smoking and neutral cues, and between the stressful and relaxed cues. RESULTS: Nicotine dependence was significantly and negatively associated with differential cue reactivity scores in regard to hedonic craving (QSU factor 1) for both in vivo and imagery cues, such that those who had low FTND scores demonstrated greater differential cue reactivity than those with higher FTND scores (beta=-.082; p=.037; beta=-.101; p=.023, respectively). Similar trends were found for the Total QSU and for negative reinforcement craving (QSU factor 2), but did not reach statistical significance. DISCUSSION: Under partially sated conditions, less dependent smokers may be more differentially cue reactive to smoking cues as compared to heavily dependent smokers. These findings offer methodological and interpretative implications for cue reactivity studies. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: Cue reactivity paradigms are well-established laboratory procedures used to examine subjective craving in response to substance-related cues. For smokers, the relationship between nicotine dependence and cue reactivity has not been clearly established. The main aim of the present study was to further examine this relationship. METHODS:Participants (N=90) were between the ages 18-40 and smoked > or =10 cigarettes per day. Average nicotine dependence (Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence; FTND) at baseline was 4.9 (SD=2.1). Participants completed four cue reactivity sessions consisting of two in vivo cues (smoking and neutral) and two affective imagery cues (stressful and relaxed), all counterbalanced. Craving in response to cues was assessed following each cue exposure using the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges-Brief (QSU-B). Differential cue reactivity was operationally defined as the difference in QSU scores between the smoking and neutral cues, and between the stressful and relaxed cues. RESULTS:Nicotine dependence was significantly and negatively associated with differential cue reactivity scores in regard to hedonic craving (QSU factor 1) for both in vivo and imagery cues, such that those who had low FTND scores demonstrated greater differential cue reactivity than those with higher FTND scores (beta=-.082; p=.037; beta=-.101; p=.023, respectively). Similar trends were found for the Total QSU and for negative reinforcement craving (QSU factor 2), but did not reach statistical significance. DISCUSSION: Under partially sated conditions, less dependent smokers may be more differentially cue reactive to smoking cues as compared to heavily dependent smokers. These findings offer methodological and interpretative implications for cue reactivity studies. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Michael E Saladin; Kevin M Gray; Matthew J Carpenter; Steven D LaRowe; Stacia M DeSantis; Himanshu P Upadhyaya Journal: Am J Addict Date: 2012 May-Jun
Authors: Saul Shiffman; Xiaoxue Li; Michael S Dunbar; Hilary A Tindle; Sarah M Scholl; Stuart G Ferguson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Matthew J Carpenter; Michael E Saladin; Steven D Larowe; Erin A McClure; Susan Simonian; Himanshu P Upadhyaya; Kevin M Gray Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Andy S L Tan; Vaughan W Rees; Justin Rodgers; Emeka Agudile; Natasha A Sokol; Kyeungyeun Yie; Ashley Sanders-Jackson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Michael S Dunbar; Saul Shiffman; Thomas R Kirchner; Hilary A Tindle; Sarah M Scholl Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jason D Robinson; Cho Y Lam; Brian L Carter; Jennifer A Minnix; Yong Cui; Francesco Versace; David W Wetter; Paul M Cinciripini Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: L Cinnamon Bidwell; Adam M Leventhal; Jennifer W Tidey; Linda Brazil; Raymond S Niaura; Suzanne M Colby Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Xingbao Li; Karen J Hartwell; Max Owens; Todd Lematty; Jeffrey J Borckardt; Colleen A Hanlon; Kathleen T Brady; Mark S George Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 13.382