4.6 Article

Mechanisms of attention to conditioned stimuli predictive of a cigarette outcome

Journal

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 232, Issue 1, Pages 183-189

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.04.009

Keywords

Prediction error; Reward; Eye-tracking; Smoking; Conditioning; Craving

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Attention to stimuli associated with a rewarding outcome may be mediated by the incentive motivational properties that the stimulus acquires during conditioning. Other theories of attention state that the prediction error (the discrepancy between the expected and the actual outcome) during conditioning guides attention: once the outcome is fully predicted, attention should be abolished for the conditioned stimulus. The current study examined which of these mechanisms is dominant in conditioning when the outcome is highly rewarding. Allocation of attention to stimuli associated with cigarettes (the rewarding outcome) was tested in 16 smokers, who underwent a classical conditioning paradigm, where abstract visual stimuli were paired with a tobacco outcome. Stimuli were associated with 100% (stimulus A), 50% (stimulus B), or 0% (stimulus C) probability of receiving tobacco. Attention was measured using an eye-tracker device, and the appetitive value of the stimuli was measured with subjective pleasantness ratings during the conditioning process. Dwell time bias (duration of eye gaze) was greatest overall for the A stimulus, and increased over conditioning. Attention to stimulus A was dependent on the ratings of pleasantness that the stimulus evoked, and on the desire to smoke. These findings appear to support the theory that attention for conditioned stimuli is dominated by the incentive motivational qualities of the outcome they predict, and implicate a role for attention in the maintenance of addictive behaviours like smoking. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available