Yasmin Mashhoon1, Jennifer Betts2, Stacey L Farmer2, Scott E Lukas3. 1. Behavioral Psychopharmacology Research Laboratory, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA; McLean Imaging Center, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: ymashhoon@mclean.harvard.edu. 2. Behavioral Psychopharmacology Research Laboratory, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA; McLean Imaging Center, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA. 3. Behavioral Psychopharmacology Research Laboratory, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA; McLean Imaging Center, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Initiation of cigarette smoking during adolescence coincides with structural and cognitive neuromaturation. Thus, early onset smokers (EOS; initiated <16 years old) may be at unique risk of altered development of executive function relative to late onset smokers (LOS; initiated >16 years old). This study quantified the effects of age of smoking onset on response impulsivity and inhibitory control using a novel smoking Go/NoGo task (Luijten et al., 2011). METHODS: Nicotine deprived adult EOS (n = 10) and LOS (n = 10) and adult healthy non-smokers (HNS; n = 10) were shown smoking-related and neutral images with either a blue (Go) or yellow (NoGo) frame. Participants were instructed to respond to blue-framed Go trials quickly and accurately, and withhold responding for yellow-framed NoGo trials. RESULTS: EOS made more Go response accuracy errors (p ≤ 0.02) and failed more frequently to inhibit responses to NoGo trials (p < 0.02) than LOS and HNS. EOS also made more errors in inhibiting responses to smoking-related (p ≤ 0.02) and neutral (p ≤ 0.02) NoGo trials. EOS reported greater baseline craving for cigarette smoking than LOS (p < 0.04), and craving was significantly associated with greater omission errors (p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: EOS exhibited greater difficulty than LOS in responding accurately to Go stimuli and withholding responses to both smoking and neutral NoGo stimuli, indicating greater response impulsivity, poor attention, and deficits in response inhibition. These findings suggest that EO smoking, in particular, contributes to diminished task-related attention and inhibitory control behaviors in adulthood and provide support for the tobacco-induced neurotoxicity of adolescent cognitive development (TINACD) theory (DeBry and Tiffany, 2008).
BACKGROUND: Initiation of cigarette smoking during adolescence coincides with structural and cognitive neuromaturation. Thus, early onset smokers (EOS; initiated <16 years old) may be at unique risk of altered development of executive function relative to late onset smokers (LOS; initiated >16 years old). This study quantified the effects of age of smoking onset on response impulsivity and inhibitory control using a novel smoking Go/NoGo task (Luijten et al., 2011). METHODS:Nicotine deprived adult EOS (n = 10) and LOS (n = 10) and adult healthy non-smokers (HNS; n = 10) were shown smoking-related and neutral images with either a blue (Go) or yellow (NoGo) frame. Participants were instructed to respond to blue-framed Go trials quickly and accurately, and withhold responding for yellow-framed NoGo trials. RESULTS: EOS made more Go response accuracy errors (p ≤ 0.02) and failed more frequently to inhibit responses to NoGo trials (p < 0.02) than LOS and HNS. EOS also made more errors in inhibiting responses to smoking-related (p ≤ 0.02) and neutral (p ≤ 0.02) NoGo trials. EOS reported greater baseline craving for cigarette smoking than LOS (p < 0.04), and craving was significantly associated with greater omission errors (p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: EOS exhibited greater difficulty than LOS in responding accurately to Go stimuli and withholding responses to both smoking and neutral NoGo stimuli, indicating greater response impulsivity, poor attention, and deficits in response inhibition. These findings suggest that EO smoking, in particular, contributes to diminished task-related attention and inhibitory control behaviors in adulthood and provide support for the tobacco-induced neurotoxicity of adolescent cognitive development (TINACD) theory (DeBry and Tiffany, 2008).
Authors: David E Evans; Nathan D Maxfield; Kate Janse Van Rensburg; Jason A Oliver; Kade G Jentink; David J Drobes Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Danielle S Counotte; Natalia A Goriounova; Ka Wan Li; Maarten Loos; Roel C van der Schors; Dustin Schetters; Anton N M Schoffelmeer; August B Smit; Huibert D Mansvelder; Tommy Pattij; Sabine Spijker Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2011-02-20 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Kristine Erickson; Wayne C Drevets; Luke Clark; Dara M Cannon; Earle E Bain; Carlos A Zarate; Dennis S Charney; Barbara J Sahakian Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Tushar Singh; René A Arrazola; Catherine G Corey; Corinne G Husten; Linda J Neff; David M Homa; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Jacob J Crouse; Kate M Chitty; Frank Iorfino; Django White; Alissa Nichles; Natalia Zmicerevska; Adam J Guastella; Ahmed A Moustafa; Daniel F Hermens; Elizabeth M Scott; Ian B Hickie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Liam Mahedy; Robyn Wootton; Steph Suddell; Caroline Skirrow; Matt Field; Jon Heron; Matthew Hickman; Marcus R Munafò Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 4.492