Literature DB >> 20716580

Implicit and explicit selective attention to smoking cues in smokers indexed by brain potentials.

Marianne Littel1, Ingmar H A Franken.   

Abstract

Substance use disorders are characterized by cognitive processing biases, such as automatically detecting and orienting attention towards drug-related stimuli. However, it is unclear how, when and what kind of attention (i.e. implicit, explicit) interacts with the processing of these stimuli. In addition, it is unclear whether smokers are hypersensitive to emotionally significant cues in general or to smoking-related cues in particular. The present event-related potential study aimed to enhance insight in drug-related processing biases by manipulating attention for smoking and other motivationally relevant (emotional) cues in smokers and non-smokers using a visual oddball task. Each of the stimulus categories served as a target (explicit attention; counting) or as a non-target (implicit attention; oddball) category. Compared with non-smokers, smokers' P300 (350-600 ms) was enhanced to smoking pictures under both attentional conditions. P300 amplitude did not differ between groups in response to positive, negative, and neutral cues. It can be concluded from this study that attention manipulation affects the P300 differently in smokers and non-smokers. Smokers display a specific bias to smoking-related cues, and this bias is present during both explicit and implicit attentional processing. Overall, it can be concluded that both explicit and implicit attentional processes appear to play an important role in drug-related processing bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20716580     DOI: 10.1177/0269881110379284

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psychopharmacol        ISSN: 0269-8811            Impact factor:   4.153


  14 in total

1.  Differences in Magnitude of Cue Reactivity Across Durations of Smoking History: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Joshua L Karelitz
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 4.244

2.  An electrophysiological dissociation of craving and stimulus-dependent attentional capture in smokers.

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

3.  Emotional graphic cigarette warning labels reduce the electrophysiological brain response to smoking cues.

Authors:  An-Li Wang; Dan Romer; Igor Elman; Bruce I Turetsky; Ruben C Gur; Daniel D Langleben
Journal:  Addict Biol       Date:  2013-12-15       Impact factor: 4.280

4.  P3 event-related potential reactivity to smoking cues: Relations with craving, tobacco dependence, and alcohol sensitivity in young adult smokers.

Authors:  Thomas M Piasecki; Kimberly A Fleming; Constantine J Trela; Bruce D Bartholow
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2016-11-17

5.  Early onset cigarette smokers exhibit greater P300 reactivity to smoking-related stimuli and report greater craving.

Authors:  Yasmin Mashhoon; Jennifer Betts; Stacey L Farmer; Scott E Lukas
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Cue reactivity in smokers: an event-related potential study.

Authors:  Erika Litvin Bloom; Geoffrey F Potts; David E Evans; David J Drobes
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 2.997

7.  The motivational salience of cigarette-related stimuli among former, never, and current smokers.

Authors:  Jason D Robinson; Francesco Versace; Jeffery M Engelmann; Yong Cui; Aurelija Slapin; Robert Oum; Paul M Cinciripini
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 3.157

Review 8.  Sex differences in the glutamate system: Implications for addiction.

Authors:  L L Giacometti; J M Barker
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 8.989

9.  Electrophysiological correlates of associative learning in smokers: a higher-order conditioning experiment.

Authors:  Marianne Littel; Ingmar Ha Franken
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 3.288

10.  Intentional modulation of the late positive potential in response to smoking cues by cognitive strategies in smokers.

Authors:  Marianne Littel; Ingmar H A Franken
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.