Amanda M Palmer1, Leslie E Sawyer2, Thomas H Brandon3. 1. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. Electronic address: palmeram@musc.edu. 2. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: When considering the clinical efficacy of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, non-pharmacologic influences, such as conditioned reinforcers (e.g. sensorimotor stimuli), must be considered in addition to nicotine. The present study parsed the influences of nicotine delivery and sensorimotor stimuli (i.e, similarity to smoking) on cravings and other immediate outcomes of e-cigarette use. METHOD: Participants (N = 127 dual users) completed an experimental ad-lib vaping session in one of 4 conditions: Drug (open label nicotine vs non-nicotine e-cigarettes) crossed with delivery apparatus (normal e-cigarette vs altered sensorimotor apparatus). It was hypothesized that participants who were deprived of the usual vaping stimuli would report less craving reduction via vaping. Nicotine was hypothesized to enhance physiological outcomes. RESULTS: Moderate effects emerged for nicotine, whereas smaller effects were observed for the sensorimotor manipulation upon both cravings to smoke and cravings to vape. Contrary to the hypothesis, participants who vaped using the altered sensorimotor apparatus reported greater craving reduction compared to those who used normal e-cigarettes. Nicotine delivery also had moderate effects on psychological reward. Main effects were not moderated by gender, withdrawal, or dependence. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the role of nicotine in reducing cravings via vaping. They also suggest that sensorimotor similarities to smoking may be less important among experienced vapers or dual users. Indeed, in this sample, the altered sensorimotor apparatus may have reduced craving via distraction or other mechanisms.
INTRODUCTION: When considering the clinical efficacy of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, non-pharmacologic influences, such as conditioned reinforcers (e.g. sensorimotor stimuli), must be considered in addition to nicotine. The present study parsed the influences of nicotine delivery and sensorimotor stimuli (i.e, similarity to smoking) on cravings and other immediate outcomes of e-cigarette use. METHOD: Participants (N = 127 dual users) completed an experimental ad-lib vaping session in one of 4 conditions: Drug (open label nicotine vs non-nicotine e-cigarettes) crossed with delivery apparatus (normal e-cigarette vs altered sensorimotor apparatus). It was hypothesized that participants who were deprived of the usual vaping stimuli would report less craving reduction via vaping. Nicotine was hypothesized to enhance physiological outcomes. RESULTS: Moderate effects emerged for nicotine, whereas smaller effects were observed for the sensorimotor manipulation upon both cravings to smoke and cravings to vape. Contrary to the hypothesis, participants who vaped using the altered sensorimotor apparatus reported greater craving reduction compared to those who used normal e-cigarettes. Nicotine delivery also had moderate effects on psychological reward. Main effects were not moderated by gender, withdrawal, or dependence. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the role of nicotine in reducing cravings via vaping. They also suggest that sensorimotor similarities to smoking may be less important among experienced vapers or dual users. Indeed, in this sample, the altered sensorimotor apparatus may have reduced craving via distraction or other mechanisms.
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Amy E Wahlquist; Bryan W Heckman; K Michael Cummings; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jonathan Foulds; Susan Veldheer; Jessica Yingst; Shari Hrabovsky; Stephen J Wilson; Travis T Nichols; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-10-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Blair Coleman; Brian Rostron; Sarah E Johnson; Alexander Persoskie; Jennifer Pearson; Cassandra Stanton; Kelvin Choi; Gabriella Anic; Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Kenneth Michael Cummings; Karin A Kasza; Marushka L Silveira; Cristine Delnevo; Raymond Niaura; David B Abrams; Heather L Kimmel; Nicolette Borek; Wilson M Compton; Andrew Hyland Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Martijn Van Heel; Dinska Van Gucht; Koen Vanbrabant; Frank Baeyens Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 3.390