Selective Processing of Smoking-Related Cues in Current Smokers, Ex-Smokers and Never-Smokers on the Modified Stroop Task

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate selective processing biases towards smoking-related stimuli in relation to acute abstinence and smoking history. Differences in the processing of smoking-related and control cues in current smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers on the modified Stroop task were investigated, with smokers randomized to either abstain or smoke normally for a period of 24 h. The results indicated no significant effect of deprivation (abstinent versus non-abstinent smokers), or of smoking history (ex- versus never-smokers) on colour-naming times for smoking-related versus control words. However, there was a significant effect of smoking status (current versus non-smokers) on colour-naming times for smoking words compared to control words (i.e. slower colour-naming of smoking-related words in smokers). This effect approached significance when stimuli were presented in a masked exposure condition. Among smokers, colour-naming interference was associated with the personality trait of Sensitivity to Reward. These results indicate a processing bias for smoking-related cues in current smokers. However, this bias does not appear to be a permanent feature of nicotine addiction, given the lack of difference between ex-smokers and never-smokers.

Generalized craving, self-report of arousal, and cue reactivity after brief abstinence

“…For example, some cognitive features of nicotine dependence (e.g., cognitive processing bias for cigaretterelated cues) have been shown to decay completely in ex-smokers to the level of never-smokers. Munafò, Mogg, Roberts, Bradley, and Murphy (2003) used a modifi ed smoking Stroop task (i.e., smoking-related and neutral words in different colors) to test cueprocessing bias (i.e., greater latency to name the correct color) and found no difference between ex-smokers and never-smokers, whereas current smokers retained the bias. Assuming that this bias is a learned phenomenon, as Robinson and Berridge (1993) suggest, then this fi nding indicates that some smoking-related learning can weaken over time.…”

A double-blind placebo controlled experimental study of nicotine: I—effects on incentive motivation

“…Elsewhere, research using this paradigm has produced mixed results; some studies have found smokers to show attentional bias towards smoking-related cues during abstinence (e.g. Gross et al 1993;Waters et al 2003) whilst others have reported such biases after recent smoking (Johnsen et al 1997); others still have reported no effect of abstinence versus recent smoking (Munafo et al 2003;Rusted et al 2000). In fact it is difficult to test the neurobiological model of addiction in relation to bias towards smoking-related words since both neurochemical and explicit cognitive processes, which affect attention towards such cues, are likely to be simultaneously involved, not necessarily working in the same direction.…”

Exposition aux substances addictogènes, réponses conditionnées et traitements d’exposition avec prévention de la réponse

“…Sur le plan clinique, ces phénomènes se traduisent par un risque accru de rechute, les stimuli liés à la fumée étant plus difficiles à ignorer (17,30,43,46). Ainsi, l'attention du sujet est retenue par un plus grand nombre de stimuli environnants liés au tabac (44).…”