| Literature DB >> 30072925 |
Johann F Fridriksson1, Chris Rorden1, Roger D Newman-Norlund1, Brett Froeliger2, James F Thrasher3.
Abstract
Graphic health warning labels (HWLs) depicting bodily injury due to smoking are effective for producing changes in affect, cognition and smoking behavior in adult smokers. However, little is known about the effects of repeated presentation of graphic HWL's on the aforementioned processes. The goal of this study was to examine neural and behavioral responses to graphic HWL's and evaluate whether the repeated presentation of graphic HWL's leads to repetition suppression (RS). Smokers (N = 16) performed an event-related HWL cue task while blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal was collected during a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experimental session. Consistent with prior literature, graphic HWL's, as compared to scrambled images, elicited increased BOLD response in brain regions involved in self-referential and emotion processing. Importantly, BOLD response at sites in this network diminished during repeated presentation of the same HWL. These findings suggest that while novel graphic HWL's may have a significant effect on smokers' brain activity, repeated presentation may lead to muted responses and thus limit their potential to induce behavioral change.Entities:
Keywords: brain; fMRI; neural response; pictorial health warning label; smoking; tobacco
Year: 2018 PMID: 30072925 PMCID: PMC6060441 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Figure 1Foreign stimuli (blue frames) and corresponding domestic stimuli (red frames) were matched for content and health topic. Foreign HWLs are generally thought to be more graphic than domestic (FDA) HWLs (5, 17).
Figure 2Participants were scanned while observing image pairs (600 ms, 300 ms per picture) separated by a short pause (400 ms). Image pairs could fall into one of seven different categories: HWLForCon (identical foreign HWLs), HWLDomCon (identical domestic HWLs), HWLForIncon (different foreign HWLs), HWLDomIncon (different domestic HWLs), SCRCon (identical phase-scrambled images), SCRIncon (different phase-scrambled images), or MisMatch (one phase-scrambled image and one HWL). The participant's task was to press a button whenever they observed a rare (11%) MisMatch trial.
Brain areas showing increased activation during viewing of health warning labels vs. scrambled images.
| OCCmiddle | −38, −86, −6 | 27 | 12.35 | OCCmiddle | 42, −84, −2 | 28 | 15.8 |
| Fusiform | −40, −58, −16 | 27 | 9.65 | OCCinferior | 44, −76, −14 | 28 | 12.93 |
| Hippocampus | −26, −18, −18 | 29 | 8.73 | MTGposterior | 46, −62, 10 | 60 | 10.93 |
| ANG | −46, −68, 34 | 63 | 8.32 | MTGposterior | 52, −60, −2 | 60 | 9.99 |
| OCCinferior | −48, −74, −8 | 5 | 8.16 | Fusiform | 40, −60, 18 | 60 | 8.26 |
| MTGpost | −40, −72, 20 | 63 | 8 | STGposterior | 50, −48, 16 | 70 | 8.25 |
| IFGorb | −28, 34, −16 | 79 | 7.53 | Precuneus | 10, −50, 22 | 36 | 7.38 |
| Precuneus | −4, −50, 16 | 49 | 6.69 | Amygdala | 30, 0, −20 | 54 | 6.71 |
| Cingulum | −8, −54, 34 | 35 | 6.44 | IFGorb | 36, 32, −16 | 80 | 6.67 |
| MTGposterior | −42, −66, 22 | 63 | 6.42 | vMPFC/Rectus | 0, 48, −16 | 21 | 6.15 |
| SFG | −16, 40, 40 | 51 | 6.41 | MTGposterior | 42, −68, 28 | 64 | 5.97 |
| MPFC | −8, 52, 8 | 19 | 6.25 | MTGant | 60, −6, −22 | 32 | 5.84 |
| vMPFC/Rectus | 0, 48, −16 | 21 | 6.15 | IFGoper | 36, 10, 20 | 82 | 5.03 |
| SPL | −18, −72, 40 | 27 | 6.02 | SFG | 14, 42, 42 | 52 | 4.82 |
| OCCsuperior | −26, −78, 42 | 27 | 5.39 | Hippocampus | 28, −20, −16 | 30 | 4.81 |
| Amygdala | −30, 2, −20 | 53 | 5.28 | IFGtri | 48, 30, 8 | 76 | 4.74 |
| IFGtri | −48, 26, 16 | 75 | 5.11 | ||||
| IFGoper/PrG | −42, 8, 30 | 81 | 4.8 | ||||
| SMA | −4, 24, 52 | 15 | 4.67 | ||||
| MTGanterior | −48, 4, −30 | 29 | 4.26 | ||||
Figure 3The main effect of HWLs as compared to scrambled images. HWLs elicited activation in the putative HWL network.
Brain areas showing greater activity during observation of foreign, as opposed to domestic, health warning labels.
| Lingual | −22, −88, −14 | 25 | 6.28 | OCCsuperior | 16, −100, 8 | 24 | 7.63 |
| PcG | −34, 0, 46 | 11 | 5.29 | Lingual | 18, −90, −10 | 26 | 7.48 |
| OCCmiddle | −26, −96, 8 | 23 | 5.05 | Insula | 40, 28, 2 | 80 | 5.2 |
| OCCmiddle | 34, −86, 22 | 28 | 4.99 | ||||
| PcG | 24, −10, 48 | 12 | 4.94 | ||||
Brain areas showing greater activity following sequential presentation of two different health warning labels, as opposed to two identical health warning labels.
| OCCmiddle | −26, −90, 20 | 27 | 8.58 | Fusiformanterior | 32, −50, −10 | 50 | 9.13 |
| Fusiformposterior | −34, −72, −16 | 27 | 7.8 | Fusiformposterior | 32, −62, −12 | 28 | 8.89 |
| Fusiformanterior | −30, −46, −20 | 59 | 6.04 | OCCinferior | 42, −66, −14 | 28 | 8.67 |
| Lingual | −16, −74, −12 | 25 | 5.81 | ITG | 46, −50, −12 | 30 | 7.48 |
| Cuneus | −10, −92, 28 | 27 | 5.06 | OCCsuperior | 26, −70, 44 | 14 | 7.36 |
| OCCsuperior | −18, −86, 34 | 27 | 4.85 | ANG | 24, −58, 44 | 14 | 6.98 |
| IFGtri | −40, 26, 20 | 81 | 4.66 | Lingual Gyrus | 18, −72, −10 | 26 | 6.35 |
| Insula | −32, 22, 10 | 81 | 4.62 | Insula | 32, 26, −2 | 81 | 6.19 |
| IPL | −24, −64, 40 | 65 | 4.34 | OCCmiddle | 26, −88, 22 | 28 | 5.99 |
| Cuneus | 6, −78, 38 | 14 | 5.68 | ||||
| Precuneus | 6, −78, 38 | 14 | 5.68 | ||||
| IFGtri | 48, 32, 20 | 76 | 5.05 | ||||
| IFGoper | 36, 10, 20 | 44 | 5.03 | ||||
| IFGorb | 50, 18, 30 | 82 | 4.74 | ||||
| Cingulatemiddle | 4, 26, 40 | 52 | 4.68 | ||||
| MFG | 42, 46, 14 | 76 | 4.54 | ||||
| IFGtri | 50, 22, 2 | 76 | 4.3 | ||||
| Cingulateanterior | 4, 42, 32 | 52 | 4.13 | ||||
Figure 4Regions where more activity was observed during presentation of different HWL images (vs. the same image two times in a row) (blue) overlaid on regions where more activity was observed for real images than phase-scrambled images (red). Areas of overlap are shown in light green. Regions active in both contrasts included the right IFGoper, bilateral OCCmiddle, and bilateral fusiform gyrus.