Attentional bias toward cigarette cues in active smokers

Chanon, Vicki W.; Sours, Chandler; Boettiger, Charlotte A.

doi:10.1007/s00213-010-1953-1

Cited by 50 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 77 publications

(112 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This process is often referred to as attentional bias and is based on the theory of incentive sensitisation put forth by Robinson and Berridge (7) . This theory has been applied to drugs of addiction (8) , smoking (9) and alcohol research (10) . More recently, it has been suggested that food-related stimuli may also have the ability to Proceedings of the Nutrition Society capture attention and activate reward pathways in the brain thus making visual food cues more salient to the observer (11,12) .…”

Section: Incentive Sensitisation: Weight Status: Eye Tracking: Visualmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attentional bias to food-related visual cues: is there a role in obesity?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incentive sensitisation model of obesity suggests that modification of the dopaminergic associated reward systems in the brain may result in increased awareness of food-related visual cues present in the current food environment. Having a heightened awareness of these visual food cues may impact on food choices and eating behaviours with those being most aware of or demonstrating greater attention to food-related stimuli potentially being at greater risk of overeating and subsequent weight gain. To date, research related to attentional responses to visual food cues has been both limited and conflicting. Such inconsistent findings may in part be explained by the use of different methodological approaches to measure attentional bias and the impact of other factors such as hunger levels, energy density of visual food cues and individual eating style traits that may influence visual attention to food-related cues outside of weight status alone. This review examines the various methodologies employed to measure attentional bias with a particular focus on the role that attentional processing of food-related visual cues may have in obesity. Based on the findings of this review, it appears that it may be too early to clarify the role visual attention to foodrelated cues may have in obesity. Results however highlight the importance of considering the most appropriate methodology to use when measuring attentional bias and the characteristics of the study populations targeted while interpreting results to date and in designing future studies.Incentive sensitisation: Weight status: Eye tracking: Visual probe: Stroop Prevalence of overweight and obesity has now reached epidemic proportions with more than 1·4 billion adults considered as overweight and of these, over 500 million being obese worldwide (1) . On a fundamental level the cause of obesity is linked to an imbalance of energy intake v. energy expenditure; however, it is now evident that obesity is a multifactorial condition that arises from interactions between genetic and environmental factors (2) . One such factor is the present 'obesogenic' environment that is characterised by a wealth of highly palatable, energy-dense foods (3) . These foods are heavily represented in the visual environment for example, through advertising and it has been suggested that frequent exposure to these forms of food-related cues may impact on eating behaviours and food choices (4)(5)(6) .According to the theory of incentive sensitisation, 'addictive substances' modify reward-related pathways in the brain leading to hypersensitisation of rewardrelated stimuli (7) . This results in increased salience to reward-related stimuli resulting in these stimuli becoming more 'attention grabbing'. It has been proposed that this heightened awareness is the consequence of repeated exposure to a particular stimulus and the association between the stimulus and a rewarding experience, which results in related cues becoming salient. The stimulus related to the rewarding experience may then attract g...

show abstract

Section: Incentive Sensitisation: Weight Status: Eye Tracking: Visualmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional bias to food-related visual cues: is there a role in obesity?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some behavioral evidence suggests that attention is already drawn toward the addiction-related stimuli at very early (e.g., 50 ms; Noël et al, 2006) time periods. Furthermore, at around 200 ms, wherein reward-related attentional capture effects have been found (e.g., Donohue et al, 2016), two studies using smoking-related stimuli did find attentional capture by these images in smokers (Bradley, Field, Mogg, & De Houwer, 2004;Chanon, Sours, & Boettiger, 2010). Other studies, however, have not found such attentional capture at 200 ms (e.g., Bradley, Field, Healy, & Mogg, 2008), or have found it only in male participants (Perlato et al, 2014), leaving the question open as to how automatic the capture of attention by addiction-related stimuli may be.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

An electrophysiological dissociation of craving and stimulus-dependent attentional capture in smokers

Donohue

Woldorff

Hopf

et al. 2016

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that over the course of an addiction, addiction-related stimuli become highly salient in the environment, thereby capturing an addict's attention. To assess these effects neurally in smokers, and how they interact with craving, we recorded electroencephalography (EEG) in two sessions: one in which participants had just smoked (noncraving), and one in which they had abstained from smoking for 3 h (craving). In both sessions, participants performed a visual-search task in which two colored squares were presented to the left and right of fixation, with one color being the target to which they should shift attention and discriminate the locations of two missing corners. Task-irrelevant images, both smoking-related and non-smoking-related, were embedded in both squares, enabling the shift of spatial attention to the target to be examined as a function of the addiction-related image being present or absent in the target, the distractor, or both. Behaviorally, participants were slower to respond to targets containing a smoking-related image. Furthermore, when the target contained a smoking-related image, the neural responses indicated that attention had been shifted less strongly to the target; when the distractor contained a smoking-related image, the shift of attention to the contralateral target was stronger. These effects occurred independently of craving and suggest that participants were actively avoiding the smoking-related images. Together, these results provide an electrophysiological dissociation between addiction-related visual-stimulus processing and the neural activity associated with craving.

show abstract

“…For example, Chanon, Sours, and Boettiger (2010) had cigarette smokers complete a visual probe task wherein two pictures -one smoking-related, the other neutral -were briefly displayed (i.e., for 150 or 500 milliseconds) prior to both disappearing and one being replaced by a small checkerboard. The participant's task was to report the location of the checkerboard.…”

Section: Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reaction times were shorter when the checkerboard replaced the smoking-related pictures, suggesting a bias towards the smoking-related stimuli. This attentional bias for addiction-related stimuli has been demonstrated in smokers (Bradley, Field, Mogg, and De Houwer, 2004;Cane, Sharma, and Albery, 2009;Chanon, Sours, and Boettiger, 2010;Drobes, Elibero, and Evans, 2006;Ehrman et al, 2002;Mogg, Bradley, Field, and de Houwer, 2003;Munafo et al, 2003;Waters et al, 2003), alcohol abusers (Cox, Blount, and Rozak, 2000;Johnsen et al, 1994;Jones, Bruce, Livingstone, and Reid, 2006;Lusher, Chandler, and Ball, 2004;Stetter et al, 1995;Stormark, Field, Hugdahl, and Horowitz, 1997), problem drinkers (Sharma, Albery, and Cook, 2001), cocaine addicts (Copersino et al, 2004), cocaine users (Hester, Dixon, and Garavan, 2006; but see Montgomery et al, 2010), opioid addicts (Franken, Kroon, Wiers, and Jansen, 2000;Lubman et al, 2000), and cannabis users (Cane, Sharma, and Albery, 2009;Field, Eastwood, Bradley and Mogg, 2006). Additionally, greater attentional bias towards food-related stimuli has been found in obese children (Braet and Crombez, 2003), obese adult females (Castellanos et al, 2009;Nijs, Muris, Euser, and Franken, 2010;Werthmann et al, 2011), and formerly obese individuals (Phelan et al, 2011) relative to healthy weight controls (see Soetens and Braet, 2007, for an exception).…”

Section: Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%