Deprivation state but not nicotine content of the cigarette affects responding by smokers on a progressive ratio task

Abstract

In two experiments, we used a progressive ratio schedule to explore factors associated with smoking motivation. In study 1, smokers who had abstained for more than 8 h bar-pressed for longer to obtain puffs on a cigarette than did non-deprived smokers. Neither group, however, showed nicotine-induced improvements in performance on an attention-demanding task. In the second study, two groups of minimally deprived smokers worked on the progressive ratio task for puffs of either a standard or an ultralow nicotine cigarette. The amount of work expended for puffs was the same for both cigarettes. The groups were also indistinguishable in terms of their subjective experience of the impact of smoking. These results suggest that the addition of nicotine to the cigarette may not have an immediate impact on the effort expended for a puff on that cigarette, and that short term changes in craving may be observed independent of satiety effects associated with nicotine ingestion. We conclude that the progressive ratio task is a useful and sensitive measure of desire to smoke, although the two experiments highlight the complexity of the relationship between subjective, objective and behavioural measures of smoking and nicotine ingestion in humans.

Human nicotine conditioning requires explicit contingency knowledge: is addictive behaviour cognitively mediated?

“…In corroboration with the incentive learning effects, human tobacco self-administration has been shown to be increased by smoking deprivation (Epstein et al 1991;Griffiths et al 1996;Madden and Bickel 1999;Perkins et al 1994Perkins et al , 1996Perkins et al , 1997Rusted et al 1998;Willner et al 1995). However, because the tobacco-seeking response was not measured in extinction, the effect of deprivation could be brought about either by the increased value of the tobacco expectancy or by the higher reward value of tobacco experienced through consumption.…”

“…However, there is currently no evidence that deprivation augments physiological reactivity to smoke-related cues (Maude-Griffin and Tiffany 1996;Payne et al 1996). By contrast, smoking deprivation has been shown to increase instrumental tobacco-seeking behaviour (Epstein et al 1991;Griffiths et al 1996;Madden and Bickel 1999;Perkins et al 1996Perkins et al , 1997Rusted et al 1998;Willner et al 1995). However, there is no clear evidence that deprivation modulates smoking cue effect on self-administration (Perkins et al 1994).…”

“…In fact, participants in studies of human tobacco/nicotine selfadministration have all possessed knowledge of the instrumental contingencies because they have been instructed at the outset of the study that operating the response manipulandum will produce the tobacco or nicotine reinforcer (Bickel et al 1992;Bickel and Madden 1999a,b;Bickel et al 1997Bickel et al , 1999Carter and Tiffany 2001;Epstein et al 1991;Hutchison et al 1996;Madden 2001;Madden and Bickel 1999;Madden et al 2000;Perkins et al 1996Perkins et al , 1997Rose et al 1985;Rusted et al 1998; Type of contingency instruction…”

Effects of Varenicline on Abstinence and Smoking Reward Following a Programmed Lapse

“…The primary task outcome is the breakpoint or highest response requirement completed in order to obtain a cigarette puff. Similar PRTs have been used as sensitive measures of cigarette reward with deprived and satiated smokers when puffs of a cigarette serve as the reinforcer ( Donny, Houtsmuller & Stitzer, 2007 ;Rusted, Mackee, Williams, & Willner, 1998 ;Shahan, Bickel, Madden, & Badger, 1999 ;Willner, Hardman, & Eaton, 1995 ).…”

The Effects of Depletion and Brain Stimulation on Motivation

“…In humans, a common use of the task is to determine how much work people are willing to perform for an addictive drug (Depoortere et al, 1993;Rush et al, 2001;Rusted et al, 1998). It can be used with any kind of reinforcer, including food and money Paule et al, 1990).…”