Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29427915›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2018

Cigarette cues capture attention of smokers and never-smokers, but for different reasons.

Menton M Deweese, Maurizio Codispoti, Jason D Robinson, Paul M Cinciripini, Francesco Versace

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. EEG might be better left alone, but ERPs must be attended to: Optimizing the late positive potential preprocessing pipeline.International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Menton M DeweeseDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1330, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX, 77230-1439, USA. Electronic address: emdeweese@mdanderson.org.
Maurizio CodispotiDepartment of Psychology, University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy.
Jason D RobinsonDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1330, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX, 77230-1439, USA.
Paul M CinciripiniDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1330, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX, 77230-1439, USA.
Francesco VersaceDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1330, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX, 77230-1439, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DIANE BODURKA · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
R25 SUPPLEMENT IN GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY EDUCATIONR25CA057730 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI CHANG, SHINE · 1992 to 2016
$18.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R25 CA057730
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the notion that smokers reliably show higher reactivity to cigarette-related versus neutral cues is both theoretically and empirically supported, it is unclear why never-smokers also show enhanced brain responses to cigarette-related cues.

methodsUsing a repetitive picture viewing paradigm, in which responses evoked by affective cues are more resistant to habituation, we assessed the effects of stimulus repetition on event-related potentials (ERPs) evoked by pleasant, unpleasant, cigarette-related, and neutral images in 34 smokers (SMO) and 34 never-smokers (NEV). We examined the early posterior negativity (EPN) and the late positive potential (LPP), two ERP components which are sensitive to a picture's motivational qualities.

resultsBefore stimulus repetition, pleasant, unpleasant, and cigarette-related cues produced greater EPN and LPP amplitudes than neutral cues in all subjects. During stimulus repetition, both components were similarly modulated by emotional arousal, such that pleasant, unpleasant, and cigarette-related cues evoked greater EPN and LPP amplitude, relative to neutral. Smoking status did not modulate these effects. While there were no group differences in self-reported stimulus ratings of valence for pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral stimuli, NEV rated cigarette-related cues as unpleasant. We observed a moderate, negative correlation between LPP amplitude and self-reported valence ratings of cigarette-related cues among NEV.

conclusionsThese data suggest that cigarette-related cues capture attentional resources of both SMO and NEV, but for different reasons. For SMO, cigarette-related cues have acquired motivational significance through repeated associations with nicotine delivery, whereas for NEV, cigarette-related cues are perceived as unpleasant.

Indexed as

CuesTobacco ProductsAdultArousalAttentionBrainEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSmokersSmokingAddictionEvent-related potentialsRepetitionSmoking

Identifiers

PMID29427915
PMCPMC5889726
OpenAlexW2794025760

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.