Attentional bias to smoking and other motivationally relevant cues is affected by nicotine exposure and dose expectancy

Jason D Robinson, Francesco Versace, Jeffery M Engelmann, Yong Cui, David G Gilbert, Andrew J Waters, Ellen R Gritz, Paul M Cinciripini
2016 Journal of Psychopharmacology  
We investigated the effects of acute nicotine dose and expected dose on attentional bias (AB) to smoking and affective cues in overnight nicotine-deprived smokers (n=51; 24 women) using a balanced placebo design, which counterbalanced given nicotine dose (Given-NIC vs. Given-DENIC) with instructed nicotine dose expectancy (Told-NIC vs. Told-DENIC). Before and after smoking a study cigarette, smokers completed a vigilance task where they pressed buttons to every third consecutive even or odd
more » ... t, while ignoring intermittent smoking, pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral picture distracters. We examined the early posterior negativity (EPN) and late positive potential (LPP) components of the event-related potentials (ERPs) to the distracters, reaction time (RT) to the target digits, and ratings of the study cigarettes. The EPN was sensitive to both given and instructed nicotine dose, while the instructed dose moderated the impact of given dose for the LPP. The RT metrics were sensitive to given but not to instructed dose. The effects of given dose on ratings following cigarette smoking (e.g., enjoyment) were moderated by the instructed dose. The ERP findings suggest that the anticipated effects of nicotine improve attention much like receiving actual nicotine. received no performance-based compensation). The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center's Institutional Review Board approved the protocol. Further information about the inclusion/exclusion criteria and participant recruitment can be found in our previous manuscript (Robinson et al., 2014) . Fifty-five participants were randomized, but four of them only completed the initial laboratory session and were removed from further analysis, leaving 51 participants who were included in the current study. Procedures Design Overview-Eligible participants completed a phone screen and five in-person sessions. Initial eligibility, interest, and demographic information were collected at the phone screen. At the in-person orientation session, participants had their smoking status verified using expired CO, completed questionnaires, practiced the vigilance task with feedback about their performance, and rated the distracter stimuli used with the vigilance task. At the remaining four in-person laboratory sessions, each participant (1) provided an expired CO sample to verify deprivation status, (2) completed questionnaires of withdrawal and mood, (3) received expectancy instructions about the type of study cigarette to be given after the first CED-RVIP task block, (4) completed the first CED-RVIP block, (5) smoked a study cigarette, either regular nicotine-containing or VLNC, (6) rated the cigarette, and (7) completed the second vigilance task block. The four laboratory sessions were part of a within-subjects BPD in which the randomized double-blind conditions of given dose (Given-NIC vs. Given-DENIC cigarettes) were counterbalanced against instructed dose (Told-NIC vs. Told-DENIC cigarettes). Participants were required to refrain from smoking for 12 hr prior to the four laboratory sessions. We measured AB to affective, smoking, and neutral distracters during the vigilance task using ERPs to the distracter pictures and RT to the target digits. Biochemical verification of smoking status and deprivation-Participants provided an expired CO sample (Bedfont EC50 Micro III Smokerlyzer; Bedfont Scientific, Medford, NJ) at each session. The Orientation Session CO sample was used to verify eligibility, while the laboratory session CO samples were used to verify the required 12-hr abstinence. Participants were required to produce CO levels below 10 ppm or 37.5% of their Orientation session CO value, based on possible CO half-life of 2 to 8 hours, depending on activity level (Benowitz et al., 2002) . Fifteen participants who failed biochemical verification of abstinence had that session rescheduled and did not receive reimbursement for that session until it was successfully completed. Picture ratings and questionnaires-At the orientation session, participants completed measures of baseline smoking, nicotine dependence, and depressive symptoms (see below). Participants also rated half of the distracters they would be viewing at the subsequent laboratory sessions using valence (i.e., pleasure) and arousal ratings based on the self-assessment manikin (SAM; Lang, 1980) , and a craving to smoke rating. The baseline questionnaire means and the SAM ratings, by distracter type, are detailed in a previous publication (Robinson et al., 2014) . Robinson et al. Results Baseline Participant Characteristics As we previously reported (Robinson et al., 2014) , the participants in this study were primarily African-American (55%), male (57%), who were 43 years old on average and who smoked 18 cigarettes per day. Additionally, 57% (n=29) were menthol smokers, and African-Americans were significantly more likely to be menthol smokers (82%) than European-American smokers (21%; χ 2 [47] = 17.28, p < .0001). Menthol smokers were younger (M = 40.48 years, SD = 10.41) than non-menthol smokers (M = 45.91, SD = 8.01), t(49) = 2.03, p = .0478, but they did not differ on any other baseline measure. Robinson et al.
doi:10.1177/0269881116642879 pmid:27097731 pmcid:PMC5858186 fatcat:dpiydfnzovdgxlyhavgibbgnia