Literature DB >> 22889041

Visual search and attentional bias for smoking cues: the role of familiarity.

Jason A Oliver1, David J Drobes.   

Abstract

Despite decades of work, the relationship between drug cues and actual drug use remains unclear. One promising area of research that may help explain this disconnect is the role of cognitive processing of drug cues, including attentional bias. This study utilized a visual search task that has previously been used to examine attentional bias in anxiety and eating disorders, but was modified to assess attentional bias for smoking cues. The task was completed by 106 participants (42.5% female), divided among three groups: smokers who continued smoking ad libitum, smokers who had abstained for 12 hours, and nonsmokers. An attentional bias for smoking stimuli was observed for both the initial orienting and maintenance subcomponents of attention. However, maintenance bias depended heavily upon the type of neutral stimuli used for comparison. Neither orienting nor maintenance bias differed across groups, indicating that these effects were not limited to smokers. Critically, the strongest predictor of attentional bias for smoking cues was previous environmental exposure to tobacco smoke. This raises questions about whether the traditional interpretation of attentional bias as an index of the incentive-motivational value of smoking cues is appropriate. Future empirical and theoretical work on smoking-related attentional bias should give greater consideration to the role that environmental exposure may play in its development.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22889041     DOI: 10.1037/a0029519

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol        ISSN: 1064-1297            Impact factor:   3.157


  9 in total

1.  Cognitive manifestations of drinking-smoking associations: preliminary findings with a cross-primed Stroop task.

Authors:  Jason A Oliver; David J Drobes
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 4.492

2.  Cigarette cues capture attention of smokers and never-smokers, but for different reasons.

Authors:  Menton M Deweese; Maurizio Codispoti; Jason D Robinson; Paul M Cinciripini; Francesco Versace
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 4.492

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Conditioned cortical reactivity to cues predicting cigarette-related or pleasant images.

Authors:  Menton M Deweese; Jason D Robinson; Paul M Cinciripini; Francesco Versace
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 2.997

6.  Eye tracking applied to tobacco smoking: current directions and future perspectives.

Authors:  Matteo Valsecchi; Maurizio Codispoti
Journal:  J Eye Mov Res       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 1.349

7.  Enhanced attentional bias towards sexually explicit cues in individuals with and without compulsive sexual behaviours.

Authors:  Daisy J Mechelmans; Michael Irvine; Paula Banca; Laura Porter; Simon Mitchell; Tom B Mole; Tatyana R Lapa; Neil A Harrison; Marc N Potenza; Valerie Voon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Attentional bias for alcohol cues in visual search-Increased engagement, difficulty to disengage or both?

Authors:  Janika Heitmann; Nienke C Jonker; Brian D Ostafin; Peter J de Jong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Efficacy of approach bias modification as an add-on to smoking cessation treatment: study protocol for a randomized-controlled double-blind trial.

Authors:  Charlotte E Wittekind; Keisuke Takano; Philipp Sckopke; Markus H Winkler; Gabriela G Werner; Thomas Ehring; Tobias Rüther
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 2.279

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.