Motor Potentials and Motor Performance Associated with Introverted and Extraverted Smokers

Abstract

Motor potentials associated with a motor task and with the initiation of the smoking act were recorded from two groups of 5 introverted and 5 extraverted smokers during sham and real smoking sessions on two separate occasions. The aim was to test hypotheses derived by O’Connor from the motor model of smoking: firstly, that change in background motor set would alter the smoker’s smoking pattern, and secondly, that smoking would principally affect extraverts’ general motor preparation (as measured by motor potentials preceeding a tapping task), whilst improving introverts’ selective inhibition (as measured by performance on a tracking task requiring skillful co-ordination). Smoking did increase the motor readiness potential preceding tapping in extraverts. Smoking decreased involuntary rest pauses of introverts and their error on the tracking task. There were, however, no differences in puff parameters across motor conditions. But larger motor potentials preceding the smoking act in introverts indicated a greater involvement of introverts in the smoking act itself. The results offer limited support to the proposal of the motor model that motor demand regulates both the motivation to smoke and the effects of smoking.

Electroencephalographic Recording of the Movement-Related Cortical Potential in Ecologically Valid Movements: A Scoping Review

“…Six studies utilized a single group, cross-sectional, single condition protocol, where only one movement task was investigated ( Boulenger et al, 2008 ; De Oliveira et al, 2012 ; Knaepen et al, 2015 ; Sburlea et al, 2015a , b ; Bodda et al, 2020 ). Ten studies utilized a between-group, cross-sectional design, where two groups (e.g., experts versus novices) performed one movement task ( Mann et al, 2011 ; Wright et al, 2012b ; Khanmohammadi et al, 2015 ; Vogt et al, 2017 ; Skrzeba and Vogt, 2018 ), or where two groups performed multiple movement tasks ( O’connor, 1986 ; Vidailhet et al, 1993 , 1995 ; Berchicci et al, 2017 ; Fearon et al, 2021 ). Twelve studies investigated multiple EEG measurement or signal processing techniques ( Khaliliardali et al, 2012 , 2015 ; Singh et al, 2016 ; Jeong et al, 2017 ; Sburlea et al, 2017 ; Rashid et al, 2018 ; Eilbeigi and Setarehdan, 2018a , b ; Karimi and Jiang, 2019 ; Moinnereau et al, 2019 ; Russo et al, 2019 ; Schwarz et al, 2020a ).…”

“…Within the 59 included studies, 50 investigated healthy populations, one investigated healthy young and older adults ( Khanmohammadi et al, 2015 ), and four investigated both healthy and clinical populations [stroke ( Sburlea et al, 2017 ), Parkinson’s Disease (PD) ( Vidailhet et al, 1993 ; Fearon et al, 2021 ), and gait-ignition failure syndrome ( Vidailhet et al, 1995 )]. A further three studies investigated stroke only populations ( Sburlea et al, 2015a ; Peters et al, 2018 ; Peters et al, 2020 ) and one study investigated smokers ( O’connor, 1986 ). Sample sizes ranged from 2 to 120 participants and ages ranged from 18 to 84 years.…”

Severity of nicotine dependence moderates performance on perceptual-motor tests of attention

“…While most findings support the view that smoking a cigarette improves attention, other studies indicate no effect (Herbert, Foulds, & Fife-Schaw, 2001) or disturbances in performance after cigarette smoking (see review by Heishman et al, 1994). For instance, some of these inconsistencies may reflect the fact that task performance in some studies required simple repetitive actions (O'Connor, 1986), while in other studies effortful and complex processes were involved (Sherwood, 1993;Spilich, June, & Renner, 1992).…”

Effects of nicotine on human psychomotor performance

“…Turning to nicotine, Warwick and Eysenck (1 968) found choice reaction time performance to be significantly improved among both non-abstinent smokers and non-smokers after 0-1 mg nicotine tablets, and studies from the HPRU laboratories Sherwood et al, 1992) have found that nicotine gum improves the motor component of a six choice reaction time task compared to placebo among non-abstinent smokers. O'Connor (1986a) found the finger tapping rate among 2h abstinent smokers to be increased after a 0-77 mg nicotine cigarette compared to a sham smoking condition. Similarly Jones et al (1992) found finger tapping among a mixed group of young, elderly and dementia patients to be increased after 0-4,0.6 and 0.8 mg subcutaneous nicotine.…”

“…In addition, the administration of nicotine through smoking, however well structured, remains an uncontrolled activity. Apart from the wide range of nicotine doses which may be obtained by different smokers smoking the same cigarettes, or the same smokers smoking different cigarettes, there still remain the confounding effects of the sensory and motoric aspects of smoking, which are regarded by many as highly reinforcing and may have their own psychomotor effects (Frith, 197 1;O'Connor, 1986a). Furthermore, the emphasis on smoking generally precludes nonsmokers from such investigations.…”