Menton M Deweese1, Maurizio Codispoti2, Jason D Robinson3, Paul M Cinciripini3, Francesco Versace3. 1. Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1330, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX, 77230-1439, USA. Electronic address: emdeweese@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy. 3. Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1330, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX, 77230-1439, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the notion that smokers reliably show higher reactivity to cigarette-related versus neutral cues is both theoretically and empirically supported, it is unclear why never-smokers also show enhanced brain responses to cigarette-related cues. METHODS: Using a repetitive picture viewing paradigm, in which responses evoked by affective cues are more resistant to habituation, we assessed the effects of stimulus repetition on event-related potentials (ERPs) evoked by pleasant, unpleasant, cigarette-related, and neutral images in 34 smokers (SMO) and 34 never-smokers (NEV). We examined the early posterior negativity (EPN) and the late positive potential (LPP), two ERP components which are sensitive to a picture's motivational qualities. RESULTS: Before stimulus repetition, pleasant, unpleasant, and cigarette-related cues produced greater EPN and LPP amplitudes than neutral cues in all subjects. During stimulus repetition, both components were similarly modulated by emotional arousal, such that pleasant, unpleasant, and cigarette-related cues evoked greater EPN and LPP amplitude, relative to neutral. Smoking status did not modulate these effects. While there were no group differences in self-reported stimulus ratings of valence for pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral stimuli, NEV rated cigarette-related cues as unpleasant. We observed a moderate, negative correlation between LPP amplitude and self-reported valence ratings of cigarette-related cues among NEV. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that cigarette-related cues capture attentional resources of both SMO and NEV, but for different reasons. For SMO, cigarette-related cues have acquired motivational significance through repeated associations with nicotine delivery, whereas for NEV, cigarette-related cues are perceived as unpleasant.
BACKGROUND: While the notion that smokers reliably show higher reactivity to cigarette-related versus neutral cues is both theoretically and empirically supported, it is unclear why never-smokers also show enhanced brain responses to cigarette-related cues. METHODS: Using a repetitive picture viewing paradigm, in which responses evoked by affective cues are more resistant to habituation, we assessed the effects of stimulus repetition on event-related potentials (ERPs) evoked by pleasant, unpleasant, cigarette-related, and neutral images in 34 smokers (SMO) and 34 never-smokers (NEV). We examined the early posterior negativity (EPN) and the late positive potential (LPP), two ERP components which are sensitive to a picture's motivational qualities. RESULTS: Before stimulus repetition, pleasant, unpleasant, and cigarette-related cues produced greater EPN and LPP amplitudes than neutral cues in all subjects. During stimulus repetition, both components were similarly modulated by emotional arousal, such that pleasant, unpleasant, and cigarette-related cues evoked greater EPN and LPP amplitude, relative to neutral. Smoking status did not modulate these effects. While there were no group differences in self-reported stimulus ratings of valence for pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral stimuli, NEV rated cigarette-related cues as unpleasant. We observed a moderate, negative correlation between LPP amplitude and self-reported valence ratings of cigarette-related cues among NEV. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that cigarette-related cues capture attentional resources of both SMO and NEV, but for different reasons. For SMO, cigarette-related cues have acquired motivational significance through repeated associations with nicotine delivery, whereas for NEV, cigarette-related cues are perceived as unpleasant.
Authors: Francesco Versace; Jennifer A Minnix; Jason D Robinson; Cho Y Lam; Victoria L Brown; Paul M Cinciripini Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 4.280
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
Authors: Francesco Versace; David W Frank; Elise M Stevens; Menton M Deweese; Michele Guindani; Susan M Schembre Journal: Psychophysiology Date: 2018-12-16 Impact factor: 4.016