Association between smoking-related attentional bias and craving measured in the clinic and in the natural environment.

Abstract

Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via American Psychological Association at http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/adb/index.aspx. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol -Explore Bristol Research General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms 1 Association between smoking-related attentional bias and craving measured in the clinic and in the natural environment 2 ObjectivePrevious studies have investigated the association between attentional bias and craving in laboratories, but ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may provide ecologically valid data. This study examines whether clinic-measured attentional bias is associated with noticing smoking cues, attention to smoking, and craving assessed by EMA and whether EMA-assessed cues and attention to smoking are associated with craving. MethodSecondary analyses of clinical trial data involving 100 cigarette smokers attempting to quit assisted by behavioural support and nicotine patch treatment. Two weeks prior to quitting, participants completed attentional bias assessments on visual probe and Stroop tasks.Participants carried personal digital assistants for seven weeks thereafter, which administered random assessments of smoking cues, attention towards smoking, and craving. ResultsParticipants completed 9271 random prompt assessments, averaging 3.3 prompts/day. There was no evidence that clinic-measured attentional bias was associated with cues seen (visual probe: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.01; Stroop: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.00), attention towards smoking (visual probe: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.02; Stroop: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.00), or craving (visual probe: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.02; Stroop: OR=1.00, 95% CI=0.99, 1.01). EMA responses to seeing a smoking cue (OR=1.94, 95%CI=1.74, 2.16) and attention towards smoking (OR=3.69, 95%CI=3.42, 3.98) were associated with craving. Internal reliability was higher for the Stroop (α=0.75) than visual probe task (α=0.20). Conclusions 3In smokers attempting cessation, clinic measures of attentional bias do not predict noticing smoking cues, focus on smoking, or craving. However, there are associations between noticing smoking cues, attention towards smoking, and craving when assessed in the moment, suggesting that attentional bias may not be a stable trait.

Moderation of alcohol craving reactivity to drinking-related contexts by individual differences in alcohol sensitivity: An ecological investigation.

“…Future ecological studies are needed to more strictly probe incentive sensitization mechanisms in LS drinkers. It will be important to determine whether similar findings are observed when participants explicitly report noticing alcohol cues (e.g., Begh, et al, 2016) or when cue presentations are manipulated directly via the mobile device (e.g., Wray, Godleski, & Tiffany, 2011).…”

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

“…This suggests that rather than being a stable trait between smoking groups, it fluctuates with the incentive value of a cue which makes within-group differences more important. Initial support for this theory was provided by Begh, Smith and Ferguson (2016) who found that laboratory measures of attentional bias such as the Stroop task and the visual probe task did not predict subsequent smoking behaviour in the real-world. However, assessments of craving and awareness of smoking cues in the environment measured through ecological momentary assessment did predict subsequent smoking behaviour.…”

“…Investigating how attentional bias fluctuates was not within the scope of these studies, meaning direct support for this theory had to be provided by other research. Begh et al (2016) found that measuring attentional bias in the lab as a trait-level construct did not predict subsequent smoking behaviour, but short-term craving and evaluation of drug-cues through ecological momentary assessment did.…”

Mobile Data Collection of Cognitive-Behavioral Tasks in Substance Use Disorders: Where Are We Now?

“…Next, participants reported exposure to smoking cues, attention to smoking, and craving for cigarettes in the field. Yet, Begh et al [25] found no association between attentional biases and neither of the EMA variables. Groefsema et al [26] used a stimulus-response-compatibility task and a visual probe task in the laboratory to measure approach and attentional biases.…”