Joshua L Karelitz1, Kenneth A Perkins2. 1. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: karelitzjl@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Smoking is believed partially reinforcing via immediate sensory perceptions. Yet, unknown is whether a cigarette's relative reinforcing efficacy can be predicted by these perceptions and whether this relationship may vary due to constituents known to alter those perceptions. METHODS: Sensory perceptions of acute smoking were examined as predictors of subsequent cigarette choice behavior. Also tested was whether nicotine content or menthol affected this relationship. Adult dependent smokers (N = 37) participated in five sessions comparing cigarettes varying in nicotine contents (NIC; 1.3, 2.3, 5.5, 11.2, and 17.4 mg/g), relative to the very lowest nicotine content, 0.4 mg/g (VLNC). Non-menthol (n = 17) and menthol (n = 20) cigarettes-matched on nicotine-were provided based on participant preference. One NIC was compared versus VLNC per session (single-blinded); NIC content order was randomized across sessions on separate days. Perceptions (e.g., "liking", "satisfying") were measured immediately after initial sampling of NIC or VLNC, followed by a validated puff-by-puff choice procedure to determine preference for each NIC versus VLNC. RESULTS: NIC perceptions (difference from VLNC) and puff choices increased with nicotine. Menthol moderated associations between perceptions and nicotine; and between puff choices and nicotine. Perceptions were predictive of puff choice-greater magnitude of difference in perceptions between VLNC and NIC led to more NIC puff choices. When testing perceptions' prediction of puff choices, neither the main effect of menthol or interaction of Perceptions X Nicotine Condition were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with assumed-but rarely tested-causes of smoking reinforcement, sensory perceptions from a cigarette predict its relative reinforcing efficacy.
INTRODUCTION: Smoking is believed partially reinforcing via immediate sensory perceptions. Yet, unknown is whether a cigarette's relative reinforcing efficacy can be predicted by these perceptions and whether this relationship may vary due to constituents known to alter those perceptions. METHODS: Sensory perceptions of acute smoking were examined as predictors of subsequent cigarette choice behavior. Also tested was whether nicotine content or menthol affected this relationship. Adult dependent smokers (N = 37) participated in five sessions comparing cigarettes varying in nicotine contents (NIC; 1.3, 2.3, 5.5, 11.2, and 17.4 mg/g), relative to the very lowest nicotine content, 0.4 mg/g (VLNC). Non-menthol (n = 17) and menthol (n = 20) cigarettes-matched on nicotine-were provided based on participant preference. One NIC was compared versus VLNC per session (single-blinded); NIC content order was randomized across sessions on separate days. Perceptions (e.g., "liking", "satisfying") were measured immediately after initial sampling of NIC or VLNC, followed by a validated puff-by-puff choice procedure to determine preference for each NIC versus VLNC. RESULTS: NIC perceptions (difference from VLNC) and puff choices increased with nicotine. Menthol moderated associations between perceptions and nicotine; and between puff choices and nicotine. Perceptions were predictive of puff choice-greater magnitude of difference in perceptions between VLNC and NIC led to more NIC puff choices. When testing perceptions' prediction of puff choices, neither the main effect of menthol or interaction of Perceptions X Nicotine Condition were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with assumed-but rarely tested-causes of smoking reinforcement, sensory perceptions from a cigarette predict its relative reinforcing efficacy.
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: 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: Paul Faulkner; Dara G Ghahremani; Rachel F Tyndale; Chelsea M Cox; Ari S Kazanjian; Neil Paterson; Shahrdad Lotfipour; Gerhard S Hellemann; Nicole Petersen; Celia Vigil; Edythe D London Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Lawrence P Carter; Maxine L Stitzer; Jack E Henningfield; Rich J O'Connor; K Michael Cummings; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jiu Ai; Kenneth M Taylor; Joseph G Lisko; Hang Tran; Clifford H Watson; Matthew R Holman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-08-09 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Asti Jackson; Barry Green; Hanno C Erythropel; Grace Kong; Dana A Cavallo; Tore Eid; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Eugenia Buta; Stephanie S O'Malley; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Andrea C Johnson; Melissa Mercincavage; Valentina Souprountchouk; Anupreet K Sidhu; Andrea C Villanti; Cristine D Delnevo; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Cosima Hoetger; Rose S Bono; Augustus M White; Andrew J Barnes; Caroline O Cobb Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 3.492