ArticlePsychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors2019
The impact of nicotine dose and instructed dose on smokers' implicit attitudes to smoking cues: An ERP study.
Article in Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nicotine-related beliefs induce dose-dependent responses in the human brain.Nature. Mental health · 2024Article
- Processing of emotional connotations in Chinese monomorphic and compound words reflected by the early posterior negativity.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Guidelines for assessment of affect-related constructs.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Studying Implicit Attitudes Towards Smoking: Event-Related Potentials in the Go/NoGo Association Task.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- You Don't Need an App-Conducting Mobile Smoking Research Using a Qualtrics-Based Approach.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is unclear whether nicotine and perceived nicotine exposure can influence automatic evaluations of cigarette stimuli. In the present study, we investigated the effects of nicotine dose and instructed dose on motivational responses to smoking cues. Forty overnight nicotine-deprived smokers completed an Implicit Association Test (IAT) at each of the four laboratory sessions in a balanced-placebo design that crossed nicotine dose (Given-NIC [given nicotine] vs. Given-DENIC [given denicotinized]) with instructed dose expectancy (Told-NIC [told-nicotine] vs. Told-DENIC. [told-denicotinized]). We measured participants' behavioral performance, including reaction time (RT) and accuracy rate, and the early posterior negativity (EPN) component using the event-related potential (ERP) technique to the target pictures. During congruent trials when the categorization condition was smoking or unpleasant, smokers had greater classification accuracy, shorter RT latency, and greater EPN amplitudes compared to the incongruent trials when the categorization condition was smoking or pleasant. The Given-NIC condition was associated with increased classification accuracy, longer RT latency, and decreased EPN amplitudes compared to the Given-DENIC condition. Similarly, the Told-NIC condition was associated with increased accuracy and decreased EPN amplitudes compared to the Told-DENIC condition, but with shorter RT latency. Cigarette-related pictures produced greater EPN amplitudes than neutral pictures. Both behavioral and ERP results suggest that smokers have negative implicit attitudes toward smoking. While both nicotine dose and expected dose facilitated stimulus categorization, there was no evidence that either factor altered smokers' negative attitudes toward smoking cues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.