Jonathan J Hammersley1, David G Gilbert2, Adam Rzetelny3, Norka E Rabinovich4. 1. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Department of Psychology, Carbondale, IL 62901-6502, USA. Electronic address: jj-hammersley@wiu.edu. 2. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Department of Psychology, Carbondale, IL 62901-6502, USA. Electronic address: dgilbert@siu.edu. 3. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Department of Psychology, Carbondale, IL 62901-6502, USA. Electronic address: adamiz@yahoo.com. 4. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Department of Psychology, Carbondale, IL 62901-6502, USA. Electronic address: norkar@siu.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE: Given baseline-dependent effects of nicotine on other forms of attention, there is reason to believe that inconsistent findings for the effects of nicotine on attentional orienting may be partly due to individual differences in baseline (abstinence state) functioning. Individuals with low baseline attention may benefit more from nicotine replacement. METHOD: The effects of nicotine as a function of baseline performance (bottom, middle, and top third of mean reaction times during placebo) were assessed in 52 habitual abstinent smokers (26 females/26 males) utilizing an arrow-cued covert orienting of attention task. RESULTS: Compared to a placebo patch, a 14mg nicotine patch produced faster overall reaction times (RTs). In addition, individuals with slower RTs during the placebo condition benefitted more from nicotine on cued trials than did those who had shorter (faster) RTs during placebo. Nicotine also enhanced the validity effect (shorter RTs to validly vs. invalidly cued targets), but this nicotine benefit did not differ as a function of overall placebo-baseline performance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the view that nicotine enhances cued spatial attentional orienting in individuals who have slower RTs during placebo (nicotine-free) conditions; however, baseline-dependent effects may not generalize to all aspects of spatial attention. These findings are consistent with findings indicating that nicotine's effects vary as a function of task parameters rather than simple RT speeding or cognitive enhancement.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE: Given baseline-dependent effects of nicotine on other forms of attention, there is reason to believe that inconsistent findings for the effects of nicotine on attentional orienting may be partly due to individual differences in baseline (abstinence state) functioning. Individuals with low baseline attention may benefit more from nicotine replacement. METHOD: The effects of nicotine as a function of baseline performance (bottom, middle, and top third of mean reaction times during placebo) were assessed in 52 habitual abstinent smokers (26 females/26 males) utilizing an arrow-cued covert orienting of attention task. RESULTS: Compared to a placebo patch, a 14mg nicotine patch produced faster overall reaction times (RTs). In addition, individuals with slower RTs during the placebo condition benefitted more from nicotine on cued trials than did those who had shorter (faster) RTs during placebo. Nicotine also enhanced the validity effect (shorter RTs to validly vs. invalidly cued targets), but this nicotine benefit did not differ as a function of overall placebo-baseline performance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the view that nicotine enhances cued spatial attentional orienting in individuals who have slower RTs during placebo (nicotine-free) conditions; however, baseline-dependent effects may not generalize to all aspects of spatial attention. These findings are consistent with findings indicating that nicotine's effects vary as a function of task parameters rather than simple RT speeding or cognitive enhancement.
Authors: Jonathan J Hammersley; Adam Rzetelny; David G Gilbert; Norka E Rabinovich; Stacey L Small; Jodi I Huggenvik Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Clara Vila-Castelar; Jenny J Ly; Lillian Kaplan; Kathleen Van Dyk; Jeffrey T Berger; Lucy O Macina; Jennifer L Stewart; Nancy S Foldi Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 2.813