4.4 Article

A double-blind placebo-controlled experimental study of nicotine: II - Effects on response inhibition and executive functioning

Journal

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 190, Issue 4, Pages 457-467

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-006-0634-6

Keywords

nicotine; abstinence; response inhibition; executive functioning; working memory; dopamine; lozenge

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [3527427] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale Smokers may show abnormal functioning in prefrontal cortex during acute abstinence, reflecting deficient activity in mesocorticolimbic circuitry. Cognitive correlates of this putatively include impaired response inhibition and other aspects of executive functioning. Objectives To investigate whether inhibitory control and other executive functions in smokers are impaired during acute abstinence relative to post-nicotine. Methods 145 smokers were tested twice after overnight abstinence-once after nicotine and once after placebo lozenges (order counterbalanced, double-blind)-on an antisaccade task, a continuous performance task (CPT), a delayed response spatial working memory task and a verbal fluency test. Results Compared with placebo, nicotine was associated with better inhibitory control on the antisaccade task and fewer impulsive responses to filler stimuli (motor errors) on the CPT; at the first assessment only, nicotine also reduced impulsive responses to 'catch' stimuli on the CPT. However, it did not affect CPT response bias (an index of impulsive vs cautious decision-making), spatial working memory, or verbal fluency. Conclusions Smoking abstinence appears to be associated with a difficulty in inhibiting prepotent motor responses, and with nicotine to attenuate this difficulty. However, more 'cognitive' forms of inhibitory control (e.g. decision-making) and the other aspects of executive function tested here appear to be unaffected.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available