WILL PEAK PROVOKED CRAVING PROVE SUPERIOR TO CUE-REACTIVITY?The clinical relevance of smoking cue-induced craving has recently been called into question [1]. Sayette & Tiffany [2] argue that this is due to methodological and theoretical limitations of current cue-exposure models of craving, and present initial evidence for an alternative 'peak provoked craving' paradigm, which incorporates both cue-induced and abstinence-induced cigarette cravings. While any potential methodological advance deserves careful consideration, here we suggest a number of reasons why this approach alone may not be sufficient to address the poor predictive validity of current laboratory measures, including peak provoked craving.We have argued previously that some of the difficulty with cue-induced craving research is the reliance on acutely abstinent smokers who are not undergoing a quit attempt [3]. Participants are often smokers not interested in quitting, and therefore withdrawal modelled in these participants is unlikely to reflect the withdrawal state of a quit attempt. In particular, as Sayette & Tiffany emphasize, cravings fluctuate considerably over the course of a quit attempt in response to various extrinsic and intrinsic factors, a point we return to below. Laboratory assessments cannot capture this. Moreover, the perceived availability of cigarettes is known to modulate craving and response to various laboratory challenges and tasks [4]. It is plausible that there will be considerable variability in perceived availability across participants within a laboratory study; for example, if it is not clear how long the session will last or whether they will be allowed to smoke within a certain time-frame. This will also contribute to substantial inter-individual variability in measures taken in this context. We appreciate that Sayette & Tiffany are not suggesting that all studies should take place within a laboratory setting, or that peak provoked craving can be applied only in this context. Nevertheless, given that much cue-induced craving research takes place within a laboratory setting, the use of peak provoked craving models alone will not address this problem.It is also worth noting that there is a long history of novel methods of assessing craving (or closely related constructs) which show initial promise only to ultimately prove disappointing. One example is the use of biobehavioural measures intended to capture cognitive biases associated with substance use, which are predicted by various models of addiction [5,6]. Early studies suggested that these measures of cognitive bias might be predictive of relapse following a quit attempt [7], but these do not appear to have been replicated, and certainly have not led to a dramatic improvement in our understanding of the determinants of relapse. Critically, it is now apparent that these measures may have poor internal reliability [8], although it may be possible to improve this somewhat [9,10]. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that they correlate only minimally with self-repor...