Kenneth A Perkins1, Nicole Kunkle2, Joshua L Karelitz2, Valerie C Michael2, Eric C Donny3. 1. Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. perkinska@upmc.edu. 2. Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, 210 S. Bouquet St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: The lowest nicotine threshold "dose" in cigarettes discriminated from a cigarette containing virtually no nicotine may help inform the minimum dose maintaining dependence. OBJECTIVES: Spectrum research cigarettes (from NIDA) differing in nicotine content were used to evaluate a procedure to determine discrimination thresholds. METHODS: Dependent smokers (n = 18; 13 M, 5 F) were tested on ability to discriminate cigarettes with nicotine contents of 11, 5, 2.4, and 1.3 mg/g, one per session, from the "ultralow" cigarette with 0.4 mg/g, after having discriminated 16 mg/g from 0.4 mg/g (all had 9-10 mg "tar"). Exposure to each was limited to 4 puffs/trial. All subjects were abstinent from smoking overnight prior to each session, and the number of sessions was determined by the participant's success in discrimination behavior on >80 % of trials. Subjective perceptions and behavioral choice between cigarettes were also assessed and related to discrimination behavior. RESULTS: The median threshold was 11 mg/g, but the range was 2.4 to 16 mg/g, suggesting wide variability in discrimination threshold. Compared to the ultralow, puff choice was greater for the subject's threshold dose but only marginal for the subthreshold (next lowest nicotine) cigarette. Threshold and subthreshold also differed on subjective perceptions but not withdrawal relief. CONCLUSIONS: Under these testing conditions, threshold content for discriminating nicotine via cigarettes may be 11 mg/g or greater for most smokers, but some can discriminate nicotine contents one-half or one-quarter this amount. Further study with other procedures and cigarette exposure amounts may identify systematic differences in nicotine discrimination thresholds.
RATIONALE: The lowest nicotine threshold "dose" in cigarettes discriminated from a cigarette containing virtually no nicotine may help inform the minimum dose maintaining dependence. OBJECTIVES: Spectrum research cigarettes (from NIDA) differing in nicotine content were used to evaluate a procedure to determine discrimination thresholds. METHODS: Dependent smokers (n = 18; 13 M, 5 F) were tested on ability to discriminate cigarettes with nicotine contents of 11, 5, 2.4, and 1.3 mg/g, one per session, from the "ultralow" cigarette with 0.4 mg/g, after having discriminated 16 mg/g from 0.4 mg/g (all had 9-10 mg "tar"). Exposure to each was limited to 4 puffs/trial. All subjects were abstinent from smoking overnight prior to each session, and the number of sessions was determined by the participant's success in discrimination behavior on >80 % of trials. Subjective perceptions and behavioral choice between cigarettes were also assessed and related to discrimination behavior. RESULTS: The median threshold was 11 mg/g, but the range was 2.4 to 16 mg/g, suggesting wide variability in discrimination threshold. Compared to the ultralow, puff choice was greater for the subject's threshold dose but only marginal for the subthreshold (next lowest nicotine) cigarette. Threshold and subthreshold also differed on subjective perceptions but not withdrawal relief. CONCLUSIONS: Under these testing conditions, threshold content for discriminating nicotine via cigarettes may be 11 mg/g or greater for most smokers, but some can discriminate nicotine contents one-half or one-quarter this amount. Further study with other procedures and cigarette exposure amounts may identify systematic differences in nicotine discrimination thresholds.
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Kenneth A Perkins; Mark G Lesage; David L Ashley; Jack E Henningfield; Neal L Benowitz; Cathy L Backinger; Mitch Zeller Journal: Tob Control Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Stephen J Heishman; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Rachel L Denlinger; Astia N Roper-Batker; Kristen M Mackowick; Joni Jensen; Sharon E Murphy; Brian F Thomas; Eric Donny Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Kenneth A Perkins; Nicole Kunkle; Valerie C Michael; Joshua L Karelitz; Eric C Donny Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Kenneth A Perkins; Nicole Kunkle; Joshua L Karelitz; K A Perkins; N Kunkle; J L Karelitz Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Christopher A Arger; Sarah H Heil; Stacey C Sigmon; Jennifer W Tidey; Maxine L Stitzer; Diann E Gaalema; Hanna J Durand; Janice Y Bunn; Elizabeth K Ruggieri; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Laura E Rupprecht; Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Jillian J Weeks; Rachel S Panas; Eric C Donny; Alan F Sved Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Sarah H Heil; Stacey C Sigmon; Jennifer W Tidey; Diann E Gaalema; Maxine L Stitzer; Hanna Durand; Janice Y Bunn; Jeff S Priest; Christopher A Arger; Mollie E Miller; Cecilia L Bergeria; Danielle R Davis; Joanna M Streck; Ivori Zvorsky; Ryan Redner; Ryan Vandrey; Lauren R Pacek Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 4.530