Evidence that suggests a negative association between cigarette smoking and learning performance

Stevens, Henry A.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197610)32:4<896::aid-jclp2270320436>3.0.co;2-h

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies which rely on simple, rapidly-paced perceptually-based tasks typically conclude that cigarette smoking facilitates cognitive performance while other evidence (Andersson, 1975;Elgerot, 1976;Gonzales & Harris, 1980;Houston, Schneider & Jarvik, 1978;Kleinman, Vaughn & Christ, 1973;Stevens, 1976;Williams, 1980, for example) suggests that for tasks which depend heavily upon access to long-term memory or manipulation of information in short-term or working memory, nicotine may not facilitate and may even interfere with cognitive performance. A comprehensive review of the literature on smoking and cognition is available to the interested reader (USDHHS, 1988) while a review of methodological considerations for tobacco research is also readily available (Grunberg & Acri, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cigarette smoking and cognitive performance

Spilich

June

Renner

1992

British Journal of Addiction

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While some investigations into the relationship between smoking and cognitive performance have reported that smoking facilitates performance, other research has come to the opposite conclusion. A review of the literature suggests that this variance in results may be due to differences among studies in design (comparing smokers only with deprived smokers rather than with non-smokers) and also to differences in task demands. Therefore, performance of smokers having just smoked, matched smokers deprived for a brief period, and also non-smokers was contrasted on a series of tasks which ranged from repetitive and perceptually-bound tasks to complex, dynamic tasks dependent upon long-term memory. It was found that while cigarette smoking had no negative effect upon performance for simple perceptual tasks, smoking was found to exert measurable negative effects upon performance for more complex information processing tasks.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cigarette smoking and cognitive performance

Spilich

June

Renner

1992

British Journal of Addiction

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparing smokers with nonsmokers to measure the longer term residual effects of smoking status on cognition has been less conclusive. Research has found, for example, that smokers perform more poorly on reaction-time tasks (Knott, 1984; female smokers), immediate memory (Carter, 1974; Gonzales & Harris, 1980), paired associate learning (Kleinman, Vaughn, & Christ, 1973), and free recall (Stevens, 1976). Other studies have reported that smoking status does not affect reaction time (Knott, 1984; male smokers) or delayed recall (Carter, 1974).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Residual effects of cigarette smoking on cognitive performance in normal aging.

Hill¹

1989

Psychology and Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined the residual effects of smoking status on cognitive function in 76 nondemented older adults. Current smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers who were screened for health and intellectual impairments were administered a battery of standardized neuropsychological tests to measure problem solving, psychomotor speed, memory, attention span, perception, and language production. Performance decrements were found for smokers on measures of psychomotor speed. No between-group differences were noted on any of the nonspeeded tests. There were no differences between nonsmokers and ex-smokers on any measures. The results suggest that the residual effects of current cigarette smoking negatively influence speeded cognitive capabilities in older adults.

show abstract

“…The remaining three studies were more heterogeneous, and explored different facets of memory and learning. Stevens (1976) found that heavy smokers performed worse on different learning tests. Tait et al (2000) found that there were no substantial differences between the groups on visual memory, but heavy smokers displayed deficits while experiencing nicotine deprivation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were five studies that investigated the role of memory or learning. Stevens (1976) performed an early study comparing non-smokers, light smokers, and heavy smokers on several complex learning tasks. These included the Hunter-Pascal Concept task, the Wisconsin Card Sorting task, the Standard Anagram task, and the Word-in-Context test.…”

Section: Memory Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the interpretation of this is clarified by the addition of a non-smoking control group, as both smoking groups performed worse than non-smokers in Paelecke-Habermann et al (2013). One study found than heavier smokers were largely worse than lighter smokers and nonsmokers on different complex learning tasks (Stevens 1976). One study found that smokers and non-smokers did not differ significantly on visual memory, but this may be affected by nicotine deprivation as 12 hour abstinence results in heavier smokers performing worse than non-smokers (Tait et al 2000).…”

Section: Summary Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Daily and Non-daily Smokers: A Profile of Drive and Cognitive Control Mechanisms

Bartlett¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, smokers were considered a single homogeneous group, but over the past two decades research has increasingly focused on differentiating daily and non-daily smokers. Despite fundamentally different smoking habits and motives, daily and non-daily smokers have similar cessation rates. In order to understand why both groups may experience a similar difficulty quitting smoking, this thesis explored neurocognitive mechanisms associated with addictive behaviour. In order to profile these mechanisms, a systematic review was conducted, highlighting there was a gap to address in two areas of research relating to drive and control. Study One (N = 60) and Study Two (N = 166) investigated attentional bias towards smoking cues using the visual probe task, finding there was no meaningful difference between daily and non-daily smokers in trait-level attentional bias. Study Three (N = 28) measured ERP components associated with inhibitory control (Go/NoGo task) and error processing (Eriksen Flanker task). There were no significant effects of interest, but the sample size was smaller than planned. This thesis made three contributions to the study of addictive behaviour. First, the systematic review highlighted that research investigating lighter and heavier smokers has a problematic level of heterogeneity in the definitions used to define the groups. Second, there was no meaningful difference in attentional bias between daily and non-daily smokers, supporting contemporary theories that attentional bias may be best conceptualised as a state-level construct. Finally, internal consistency estimates of the ERP measures of inhibitory control and error processing supported previous research reporting good psychometric properties. Overall, this thesis presented a focused profile of measures relating to drive and control neurocognitive mechanisms, but there were no meaningful differences between daily and non-daily smokers. If these mechanisms are important to addictive behaviour, future research will have to investigate their role using alternative designs.

show abstract

Evidence that suggests a negative association between cigarette smoking and learning performance

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Cigarette smoking and cognitive performance

Cigarette smoking and cognitive performance

Residual effects of cigarette smoking on cognitive performance in normal aging.

Daily and Non-daily Smokers: A Profile of Drive and Cognitive Control Mechanisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About