Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27012714›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2016

Effects of cognitive load on neural and behavioral responses to smoking-cue distractors.

R Ross MacLean, Travis T Nichols, James M LeBreton, Stephen J Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

R Ross MacLeanDepartment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, 311 Moore Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Travis T NicholsDepartment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, 311 Moore Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
James M LeBretonDepartment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, 311 Moore Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Stephen J WilsonDepartment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, 311 Moore Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA. sjw42@psu.edu.

Funding

(PQA1) FMRI Neurofeedback and Descision-Making in Habitual Cigarette SmokersR21CA190093 · NCI · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI WILSON, STEPHEN JEFFREY · 2014 to 2015
$361k
Nicotine dependence, reward sensitivity, and lapse behavior in light smokersR03DA035929 · NIDA · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI WILSON, STEPHEN JEFFREY · 2014 to 2015
$148k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA190093NIDA NIH HHS R03 DA035929
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Smoking cessation failures are frequently thought to reflect poor top-down regulatory control over behavior. Previous studies have suggested that smoking cues occupy limited working memory resources, an effect that may contribute to difficulty achieving abstinence. Few studies have evaluated the effects of cognitive load on the ability to actively maintain information in the face of distracting smoking cues. For the present study, we adapted an fMRI probed recall task under low and high cognitive load with three distractor conditions: control, neutral images, or smoking-related images. Consistent with a limited-resource model of cue reactivity, we predicted that the performance of daily smokers (n = 17) would be most impaired when high load was paired with smoking distractors. The results demonstrated a main effect of load, with decreased accuracy under high, as compared to low, cognitive load. Surprisingly, an interaction revealed that the effect of load was weakest in the smoking cue distractor condition. Along with this behavioral effect, we observed significantly greater activation of the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) in the low-load condition than in the high-load condition for trials containing smoking cue distractors. Furthermore, load-related changes in rIFG activation partially mediated the effects of load on task accuracy in the smoking-cue distractor condition. These findings are discussed in the context of prevailing cognitive and cue reactivity theories. These results suggest that high cognitive load does not necessarily make smokers more susceptible to interference from smoking-related stimuli, and that elevated load may even have a buffering effect in the presence of smoking cues under certain conditions.

Indexed as

Brain MappingCuesAnalysis of VarianceBrainCognitionDrug-Seeking BehaviorFunctional LateralityHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedJudgmentMagnetic Resonance ImagingMental RecallOxygenReaction TimeSmokingOxygenCognitive loadCue reactivityInterferenceSmokingWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID27012714
PMCPMC5361617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.