2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2005.10.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Acute effects of nicotine on attention and response inhibition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
64
2
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
5
64
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Due to experimental constraints, we limited the CPT task to 6 min, which was not sufficient time to observe a vigilance decrement. The performance improvement (fewer false alarms and faster response time) we observed when nicotine was administered after overnight tobacco deprivation is consistent with previous studies in which nicotine was administered transdermally (Bekker et al, 2005;Trimmel and Wittberger, 2004) or via subcutaneous injection (Foulds et al, 1996). In the nondeprived condition, we observed increased hits, decreased false alarms, and decreased variability of response time.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Due to experimental constraints, we limited the CPT task to 6 min, which was not sufficient time to observe a vigilance decrement. The performance improvement (fewer false alarms and faster response time) we observed when nicotine was administered after overnight tobacco deprivation is consistent with previous studies in which nicotine was administered transdermally (Bekker et al, 2005;Trimmel and Wittberger, 2004) or via subcutaneous injection (Foulds et al, 1996). In the nondeprived condition, we observed increased hits, decreased false alarms, and decreased variability of response time.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In our patients, SSRT correlated with go accuracy and IIV, both of which reflect attentional processing rather than response inhibition. Other work has also shown that paying attention to task-relevant stimuli can play an important role in determining SSRT (54). Hence, the changes in SSRT observed after TBI might reflect impairments of attention rather than pure motor inhibition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Poor inhibitory response control in abstinent smokers has also been inferred by others based on evidence of: increased errors of commission on vigilance tasks (Hatsukami et al 1989;Zack et al 2001); less efficient inhibition of eye movements towards task irrelevant stimuli (Rycroft et al 2005); and decreased inhibition of irrelevant material on a retrieval induced forgetting task (Edginton & Rusted, 2003). Using continuous performance and go/no-go tasks, Bekker et al (2005), by contrast, recently reported only minimal enhancing effects of nicotine on response inhibition in abstinent smokers. Elsewhere, others have demonstrated that current smokers are also more likely than non-smokers to favour small but immediate monetary rewards over larger but delayed rewards, a pattern of responding often characterised as 'impulsive' (Bickel et al 1999;Mitchell 1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…For example, whilst Al-Adawi and Powell (1997) found poorer verbal fluency (tapping volitional response generation) and reduced reversed digit span (tapping working memory) in abstinent compared with satiated smokers, these findings were not replicated in a subsequent study (Powell et al 2002). Several researchers (e.g., Bekker et al, 2005;Harte and Kanarek, 2004;Sacco et al, 2005) have reported reduced accuracy on the continuous performance task, which involves working memory and attention, during abstinence; however, although Mendrek et al (2006) found that relative to non-smokers abstinent smokers were impaired in working memory assessed by the n-back task, their deficits were not reversed by smoking a single cigarette. There are also other apparently contradictory reports.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%