Vicki W Chanon1, Chandler R Sours, Charlotte A Boettiger. 1. Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 3270, Davie Hall, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-3270, USA. vmwest@email.unc.edu
Abstract
RATIONALE: While it is well documented that substance users exhibit attentional bias toward addiction-related stimuli, the exact mechanism remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To differentiate between distinct aspects of attentional allocation in the smoking-cue attentional bias observed in smokers. METHODS: Active smokers (AS) and non-smoking controls completed spatial cueing tasks with pairs of smoking and neutral pictorial cues to measure attentional capture, and an attentional blink task with either a smoking or neutral image appearing behind the first target (T1) to measure aspects of attention separate from capture. In addition, we tested groups of sports enthusiasts, and non-enthusiasts in corresponding tasks replacing smoking images with sports-related images to address the possibility that effects found in the smoking study were due simply to greater stimulus familiarity. RESULTS: Smoking cues reflexively capture smokers' attention, as AS showed a greater bias toward smoking cues in short stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA; the time between the onset of two stimuli) trials, but not in trials with a longer SOA. These effects represent a facilitation of responding to smoking- versus neutral-cued targets, and were absent in the sports control task. The attentional blink effects were similar in the smoking- and sports-cue experiments: the special T1 resulted in better detection of the second target for the smokers and sports enthusiasts. CONCLUSIONS: Stimulus familiarity may contribute to some aspects of attentional bias in regular nicotine users, but selective quick capture of attention by smoking cues may be nicotine-habit specific.
RATIONALE: While it is well documented that substance users exhibit attentional bias toward addiction-related stimuli, the exact mechanism remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To differentiate between distinct aspects of attentional allocation in the smoking-cue attentional bias observed in smokers. METHODS: Active smokers (AS) and non-smoking controls completed spatial cueing tasks with pairs of smoking and neutral pictorial cues to measure attentional capture, and an attentional blink task with either a smoking or neutral image appearing behind the first target (T1) to measure aspects of attention separate from capture. In addition, we tested groups of sports enthusiasts, and non-enthusiasts in corresponding tasks replacing smoking images with sports-related images to address the possibility that effects found in the smoking study were due simply to greater stimulus familiarity. RESULTS: Smoking cues reflexively capture smokers' attention, asAS showed a greater bias toward smoking cues in short stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA; the time between the onset of two stimuli) trials, but not in trials with a longer SOA. These effects represent a facilitation of responding to smoking- versus neutral-cued targets, and were absent in the sports control task. The attentional blink effects were similar in the smoking- and sports-cue experiments: the special T1 resulted in better detection of the second target for the smokers and sports enthusiasts. CONCLUSIONS: Stimulus familiarity may contribute to some aspects of attentional bias in regular nicotine users, but selective quick capture of attention by smoking cues may be nicotine-habit specific.
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: M Bar; K S Kassam; A S Ghuman; J Boshyan; A M Schmid; A M Schmidt; A M Dale; M S Hämäläinen; K Marinkovic; D L Schacter; B R Rosen; E Halgren Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-01-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Chris C Streeter; Devin B Terhune; Theodore H Whitfield; Staci Gruber; Ofra Sarid-Segal; Marisa M Silveri; Golfo Tzilos; Maryam Afshar; Elizabeth D Rouse; Hua Tian; Perry F Renshaw; Domenic A Ciraulo; Deborah A Yurgelun-Todd Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2007-06-13 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Corinde E Wiers; Simone Kühn; Amir Homayoun Javadi; Ozlem Korucuoglu; Reinout W Wiers; Henrik Walter; Jürgen Gallinat; Felix Bermpohl Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Sarah E Donohue; Marty G Woldorff; Jens-Max Hopf; Joseph A Harris; Hans-Jochen Heinze; Mircea A Schoenfeld Journal: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Sierra J Stringfield; Matthew I Palmatier; Charlotte A Boettiger; Donita L Robinson Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Amanda Elton; Monica L Faulkner; Donita L Robinson; Charlotte A Boettiger Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 8.294