Signe Vangkilde1, Claus Bundesen, Jennifer T Coull. 1. Center for Visual Cognition, Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Oester Farimagsgade 2A, 1353, Copenhagen K, Denmark. Signe.Vangkilde@psy.ku.dk
Abstract
RATIONALE: Nicotine has been shown to improve both memory and attention when assessed through speeded motor responses. Since very few studies have assessed effects of nicotine on visual attention using measures that are uncontaminated by motoric effects, nicotine's attentional effects may, at least partially, be due to speeding of motor function. OBJECTIVES: Using an unspeeded, accuracy-based test, the CombiTVA paradigm, we examined whether nicotine enhances attention when it is measured independently of motor processing. METHODS: We modelled data with a computational theory of visual attention (TVA; Bundesen 1990) so as to derive independent estimates of several distinct components of attention from performance of the single task: threshold of visual perception, perceptual processing speed, visual short-term memory storage capacity and top-down controlled selectivity. Acute effects of nicotine (2 mg gum) on performance were assessed in 24 healthy young non-smokers in aplacebo-controlled counterbalanced, crossover design. Chronic effects of nicotine were investigated in 24 age- and education-matched minimally deprived smokers. RESULTS: Both an acute dose of nicotine in non-smokers and chronic nicotine use in temporarily abstaining smokers improved perceptual thresholds but slowed subsequent perceptual speed. Moreover, both acute and chronic nicotine use reduced attentional selectivity though visual short-term memory capacity was unimpaired. CONCLUSIONS:Nicotine differentially affected discrete components of visual attention, with acute and chronic doses revealing identical patterns of performance. We challenge prior reports of nicotine-induced speeding of information processing by showing, for the first time, that nicotine slows down perceptual processing speed when assessed using accuracy-based measures of cognitive performance.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Nicotine has been shown to improve both memory and attention when assessed through speeded motor responses. Since very few studies have assessed effects of nicotine on visual attention using measures that are uncontaminated by motoric effects, nicotine's attentional effects may, at least partially, be due to speeding of motor function. OBJECTIVES: Using an unspeeded, accuracy-based test, the CombiTVA paradigm, we examined whether nicotine enhances attention when it is measured independently of motor processing. METHODS: We modelled data with a computational theory of visual attention (TVA; Bundesen 1990) so as to derive independent estimates of several distinct components of attention from performance of the single task: threshold of visual perception, perceptual processing speed, visual short-term memory storage capacity and top-down controlled selectivity. Acute effects of nicotine (2 mg gum) on performance were assessed in 24 healthy young non-smokers in a placebo-controlled counterbalanced, crossover design. Chronic effects of nicotine were investigated in 24 age- and education-matched minimally deprived smokers. RESULTS: Both an acute dose of nicotine in non-smokers and chronic nicotine use in temporarily abstaining smokers improved perceptual thresholds but slowed subsequent perceptual speed. Moreover, both acute and chronic nicotine use reduced attentional selectivity though visual short-term memory capacity was unimpaired. CONCLUSIONS:Nicotine differentially affected discrete components of visual attention, with acute and chronic doses revealing identical patterns of performance. We challenge prior reports of nicotine-induced speeding of information processing by showing, for the first time, that nicotine slows down perceptual processing speed when assessed using accuracy-based measures of cognitive performance.
Authors: Kathrin Finke; Peter Bublak; Joseph Krummenacher; Søren Kyllingsbaek; Hermann J Muller; Werner X Schneider Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: C M Fitzpatrick; M Caballero-Puntiverio; U Gether; T Habekost; C Bundesen; S Vangkilde; D P D Woldbye; J T Andreasen; A Petersen Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Howard J Gritton; William M Howe; Caitlin S Mallory; Vaughn L Hetrick; Joshua D Berke; Martin Sarter Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Felix Kleefeld; Sophie Heller; Patrick Ingiliz; Heiko Jessen; Anders Petersen; Ute Kopp; Antje Kraft; Katrin Hahn Journal: J Neurovirol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 2.643
Authors: Jonathan J Hammersley; David G Gilbert; Adam Rzetelny; Norka E Rabinovich Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 3.533