Carry-over effects of smoking cue exposure on working memory performance

Abstract

The present study investigated the effects of drug cue exposure on working memory performance in cigarette smokers. Adult smokers (N=23) deprived for 12 hr performed a working memory task during which they were exposed to three types of task-irrelevant stimuli: Pictures containing smoking related-content, pictures devoid of smoking content, and a fixation cross. Consistent with prior research, we found that drug cue exposure affected the processing of subsequent items (i.e., carryover effects). Specifically, we found that working memory performance was worse on trials containing neutral pictures preceded by trials containing smoking cues compared with performance on trials containing neutral pictures preceded by trials not containing smoking-related stimuli. Previously observed effects of smoking cue exposure on cognitive processing were replicated but only after removing trials subject to carry-over effects. These results replicate and extend previous research demonstrating similar effects and highlight the significant methodological and conceptual implications of carry-over effects.

The way to her heart? Response to romantic cues is dependent on hunger state and dieting history: An fMRI pilot study

“…Past research suggests that brain activity in response to evocative stimuli (such as emotional stimuli and cues for drugs of abuse) can "carry over" to neutral stimuli in the same scanning block, thereby progressively undermining the contrast in activation between control cues and experimental cues (Childress et al, 2008;Goldman et al, 2013;Sharma & Money, 2010;Waters, Sayette, Franken, & Schwartz, 2005;Wilson, Sayette, Fiez, & Brough, 2007). We anticipated that these "carry-over" effects would impact our ability to detect differences, but there is no metric for when this would take place during the scan.…”

Counterbalancing in Smoking Cue Research: A Critical Analysis

“…But there also are plenty of instances in which contrasts of interest were not significant (e.g., studies in which heavy and light smokers do not show differential increases in craving following smoking cue exposure), which could have been affected by order interactions that were not corrected by counterbalancing. For instance, Wilson et al (2007) failed to observe an effect of smoking cues on a working memory task but found that this null finding was in large part a function of carryover effects. Moreover, it is unknown how many studies failing to detect significant differences went unpublished, and as noted above, some studies failing to link cue reactivity effects to subsequent relapse may have been affected by a noisy manipulation of cues due to carryover effects.…”

“…Performance during the neutral cue was disrupted if subjects had just previously been exposed to the smoking cues (compared with when the control cue exposure came first). As noted by Wilson et al (2007), "performance on a wide variety of cognitive tasks is likely to exhibit similar [carryover] effects." (p. 617).…”

“…Exposure to smoking-related cues can affect the processing of cues presented shortly thereafter, even when such cues are neutral. Failing to appreciate the impact of these effects may have significant implications for studies using multiple intermingled presentations of smoking-related and non smoking stimuli (Wilson et al, 2007). Investigating the mechanisms underlying carryover may offer insight into the nature of the cognitive biases associated with nicotine addiction.…”

“…Research also reveals carryover effects of smoking cues on working memory. Wilson, Sayette, Fiez, and Brough (2007) presented smokers with smoking and neutral cues in a counterbalanced fashion before administering a working memory task and reported an order by cue interaction. Performance during the neutral cue was disrupted if subjects had just previously been exposed to the smoking cues (compared with when the control cue exposure came first).…”