Processing bias is an important feature of substance abuse. The issue whether processing bias is a more or less permanent feature of nicotine addiction remains to be resolved. The present study addresses the role of smoking status on smoking-related processing bias. We employed Event-Related Brain Potentials (ERPs) as measure of processing bias to investigate this issue. Further, self-report measures of nicotine craving and pleasantness ratings of smoking stimuli were obtained. Three groups, smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers, were compared on their electrophysiological brain response to smoking-related and neutral pictures. The present study shows that both the P300 and SPW amplitudes in response to smoking-related pictures are significantly more enhanced for smokers than for ex-smokers and never-smokers at frontal and central sites, whereas the magnitude of the P300 and SPW amplitudes in response to neutral pictures does not differ between the three groups. Accordingly, it can be concluded that smokers show more bias for smoking-related pictures than ex-smokers and smokers. Because there is no significant difference between the P300 and SPW amplitudes of ex-smokers and never-smokers, it can also be concluded that ex-smokers display the same (low) level of processing bias as never-smokers. In addition, nicotine-craving ratings and pleasantness ratings of smoking stimuli were higher in smokers compared to ex-smokers. It can be concluded that the smoking-related craving, pleasantness rating, and processing bias decreases after a period of prolonged abstinence.
Baer J.S., Lichtenstein E. (1988) Classification and prediction of smoking relapse episodes: an exploration of individual differences. J Consult Clin Psychol56: 104—110
2.
Bradley B., Field M., Mogg K., De Houwer J. (2004) Attentional and evaluative biases for smoking cues in nicotine dependence: component processes of biases in visual orienting . Behav Pharmacol15: 29—36
3.
Bradley B.P., Mogg K., Wright T., Field M. (2003) Attentional bias in drug dependence: Vigilance for cigarette-related cues in smokers. PsycholAddict Behav17: 66—72
4.
Carpenter K.M., Schreiber E., Church S., McDowell D. (2006) Drug Stroop performance: Relationships with primary substance of use and treatment outcome in a drug-dependent outpatient sample . Addict Behav31: 174—181
5.
Carretié L., Mercado F., Tapia M., Hinojosa J.A., Martín-Loeches M. (2004) Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: Neural correlates. Hum Brain Mapp22: 290—299
6.
Coles M G H, Gratton G., Fabiani M. (1990) Event-related brain potentials. In Cacioppo J T, Tassinary I G (eds), Principles of psychophysiology: Physical, social, and inferential elements. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England
7.
Cox L.S., Tiffany S.T., Christen A.G. (2001) Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-brief) in laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine Tob Res3: 7—16
8.
Cox W.M., Hogan L.M., Kristian M.R., Race J.H. (2002) Alcohol attentional bias as a predictor of alcohol abusers' treatment outcome. Drug Alcohol Depend68: 237—243
9.
Cuthbert B.N., Schupp H.T., Bradley M.M., Birbaumer N., Lang P.J. (2000) Brain potentials in affective picture processing: covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biol Psychol52: 95—111
10.
Ehrman R.N., Robbins S.J., Bromwell M.A., Lankford M.E., Monterosso J.R., O'Brien C.P. (2002) Comparing attentional bias to smoking cues in current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers using a dot-probe task. Drug Alcohol Depend67: 185—191
11.
Fehr T., Wiedenmann P., Herrmann M. (2006) Nicotine Stroop and addiction memory: an ERP study . Int J Psychophysiol62: 224—232
12.
Field M., Mogg K., Bradley P. (2006) Attention to drug-related cues in drug abuse and addiction: Component processes. In Wiers R W, Stacy A W (eds), Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction, 151—163. Sage Publications , Thousand Oaks
13.
Field M., Mogg K., Zetteler J., Bradley B.P. (2004) Attentional biases for alcohol cues in heavy and light social drinkers: the roles of initial orienting and maintained attention . Psychopharmacology (Berl)176: 88—93
14.
Franken I H A (2003) Drug craving and addiction: integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological approaches. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry27: 563—579
15.
Franken I H A, Hulstijn K.P., Stam C.J., Hendriks V.M., van den Brink W. (2004) Two new neurophysiological indices of cocaine craving: Evoked brain potentials and cue modulated startle reflex. J Psychopharmacol (Oxf)18: 544—552
16.
Franken I H A, Kroon L.Y., Wiers R.W., Jansen A. (2000) Selective cognitive processing of drug cues in heroin dependence. J Psychopharmacol (Oxf)14: 395—400
17.
Franken I H A, Stam C.J., Hendriks V.M., Van den Brink W. (2003) Neurophysiological evidence for abnormal cognitive processing of drug cues in heroin dependence. Psychopharmacology (Berl)170: 205—212
18.
Gehring W.J., Gratton G., Coles M G H, Donchin E. (1992) Probability effects on stimulus evaluation and response processes. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform18: 198—216
19.
Geier A., Mucha R.F., Pauli P. (2000) Appetitive nature of drug cues confirmed with physiological measures in a model using pictures of smoking. Psychopharmacology (Berl)150: 283—291
20.
Gratton G., Coles M G H, Donchin E. (1983) A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact . Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol55: 468—484
Heatherton T.F., Kozlowski L.T., Frecker R.C., Fagerstrom K.O. (1991) The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict86: 1119—1127
23.
Herrmann M.J., Weijers H.G., Wiesbeck G.A., Aranda D., Böning J., Fallgatter A.J. (2000) Event-related potentials and cue-reactivity in alcoholism. Alcohol Clin Exp Res24: 1724—1729
24.
Herrmann M.J., Weijers H.G., Wiesbeck G.A., Boning J., Fallgatter A.J. (2001) Alcohol cue-reactivity in heavy and light social drinkers as revealed by event-related potentials. Alcohol Alcohol36: 588—593
25.
Hester R., Dixon V., Garavan H. (2006) A consistent attentional bias for drug-related material in active cocaine users across word and picture versions of the emotional Stroop task. Drug Alcohol Depend81: 251—257
26.
Hogarth L., Duka T. ( 2006) Human nicotine conditioning requires explicit contingency knowledge: is addictive behaviour cognitively mediated?Psychopharmacology (Berl)184: 553—566
27.
Hogarth L.C., Mogg K., Bradley B.P., Duka T., Dickinson A. (2003) Attentional orienting towards smoking-related stimuli . Behav Pharmacol14: 153—160
28.
Hogarth L., Dickinson A., Duka T. ( 2005) Explicit knowledge of stimulus-outcome contingencies and stimulus control of selective attention and instrumental action in human smoking behaviour. Psychopharmacology (Berl)177: 428—437
29.
Houlihan M.E., Pritchard W.S., Guy T.D., Robinson J.H. (2002) Smoking/nicotine affects the magnitude and onset of lateralized readiness potentials. Journal ofPsychophysiology16: 37—45
30.
Houlihan M.E., Pritchard W.S., Robinson J.H. (1996) Faster P300 latency after smoking in visual but not auditory oddball tasks. Psychopharmacology123: 231—238
31.
Hudmon K.S., Pomerleau C.S., Brigham J., Javitz H., Swan G.E. (2005) Validity of retrospective assessments of nicotine dependence: a preliminary report. Addict Behav30: 613—617
32.
Johnsen B.H., Thayer J.F., Laberg J.C., Asbjornsen A.E. (1997) Attentional bias in active smokers, abstinent smokers, and nonsmokers. Addict Behav22: 813—817
33.
Lang P.J., Bradley M.M., Cuthbert B.N. (1997) Motivated attention: Affect, activation, and action . In Lang P J, Simons R F, Balaban M (eds), Attention and orienting: sensory and motivational processes, 97—136. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey
34.
Lang P.J., Bradley M.M., Cuthbert B.N. (1998) Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: Brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. Biol Psychiatry44: 1248—1263
35.
Lubman D.I., Peters L.A., Mogg K., Bradley B.P., Deakin J F W (2000) Attentional bias for drug cues in opiate dependence . Psychol Med30: 169—175
36.
Marissen M A E, Franken I H A, Waters A.J., Blanken P., van den Brink W., Hendriks V.M. (2006) Attentional bias predicts heroin relapse following treatment. Addiction101: 1306—1312
37.
Mogg K., Bradley B.P. (2002) Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: manipulation of deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias. J Psychopharmacol (Oxf)16: 385—392
38.
Mogg K., Bradley B.P., Field M., De Houwer J. (2003) Eye movements to smoking-related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence. Addiction98: 825—836
39.
Mogg K., Field M., Bradley B.P. (2005) Attentional and approach biases for smoking cues in smokers: an investigation of competing theoretical views of addiction. Psychopharmacology (Berl)180: 333—341
40.
Munafo M., Mogg K., Roberts S., Bradley B.P., Murphy M. (2003) Selective processing of smoking-related cues in current smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers on the modified Stroop task . J Psychopharmacol (Oxf)17: 310—316
41.
Namkoong K., Lee E., Lee C.H., Lee B.O., An S.K. (2004) Increased P3 amplitudes induced by alcohol-related pictures in patients with alcohol dependence. Alcohol Clin Exp Res28: 1317—1323
42.
Niaura R., Abrams D., Pedrazgh M., Monti P., Rohsenow D.J. (1992) Smokers' reactions to interpersonal interaction and presentation of smoking cues. Addict Behav17: 557—566
43.
Robinson T.E., Berridge K.C. (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Rev18: 247—291
44.
Rusted J.M., Caulfield D., King L., Goode A. (2000) Moving out of the laboratory: does nicotine improve everyday attention?Behav Pharmacol11: 621—629
Schupp H.T., Cuthbert B.N., Bradley M.M., Cacioppo J.T., Ito T., Lang P.J. (2000) Affective picture processing: The late positive potential is modulated by motivational relevance. Psychophysiology37: 257—261
47.
Schupp H.T., Junghoefer M., Weike A.I., Hamm A.O. (2003) Emotional facilitation of sensory processing in the visual cortex. Psychol Sci14: 7—13
48.
Stewart J., de Wit H., Eikelboom R. (1984) Role of unconditioned and conditioned drug effects in the self-administration of opiates and stimulants. Psychol Rev91: 251—268
49.
Tiffany S.T., Drobes D.J. (1991) The development and initial validation of a questionnaire on smoking urges. Br J Addict86: 1467—1476
50.
Townshend J.M., Duka T. ( 2001) Attentional bias associated with alcohol cues: differences between heavy and occasional social drinkers. Psychopharmacology (Berl)157: 67—74
51.
Van de Laar M.C., Licht R., Franken I H A, Hendriks V.M. (2004) Event-related potentials indicate motivational relevance of cocaine cues in abstinent cocaine addicts. Psychopharmacology (Berl)177: 121—129
52.
Vink J.M., Willemsen G., Beem A.L., Boomsma D.I. (2005) The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence in a Dutch sample of daily smokers and ex-smokers. Addict Behav30: 575—579
53.
Vuilleumier P. (2005) How brains beware: neural mechanisms of emotional attention. Trends Cogn Sci9: 585—594
54.
Warren C.A., McDonough B.E. (1999) Event-related brain potentials as indicators of smoking cue-reactivity. Clin Neurophysiol110: 1570—1584
55.
Waters A.J., Feyerabend C. (2000) Determinants and effects of attentional bias in smokers. PsycholAddict Behav14: 111—120
56.
Waters A.J., Sayette M.A. (2006) Implicit cognition and tobacco addiction. In Wiers R W, Stacy A W (eds), Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction , 309—338. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
