4.7 Article

A single dose of nicotine enhances reward responsiveness in nonsmokers: Implications for development of dependence

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 63, 期 11, 页码 1061-1065

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.09.015

关键词

anhedonia; drug addiction; nicotine; nonsmokers; reward; reward responsiveness

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [K23 DA000510-03, K23 DA000510-02, K23 DA000510-05, K23 DA000510-01, K23 DA000510, K23 DA000510-04, 1K23DA00510] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH068376] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Tobacco smoking, driven by the addictive properties of nicotine, is the most prevalent preventable cause of death in the Western world. Accumulated evidence suggests that nicotine may increase appetitive responding for nondrug incentives in the environment. Methods: To test this hypothesis, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of the effect of a single dose of transdermal nicotine on reward responsiveness in 30 psychiatrically healthy nonsmokers. A novel signal detection task in which correct responses were differentially rewarded in a 3:1 ratio was used to assess the extent to which participants modulated their behavior as a function of reward. Results: Despite expected adverse effects such as nausea, nicotine significantly increased response bias toward the more frequently rewarded condition, at the expense of accuracy, independent of effects on attention or overall vigilance. Additionally, response bias on placebo was greater in participants who received nicotine in the first session, indicating that an effect of nicotine on reward responsiveness or reward-based learning persisted for at least 1 week. Conclusions: These findings suggest that a single dose of nicotine enhances response to non-drug-related rewards in the environment, with lasting effects. This effect may contribute to reinforcement of early smoking behavior and development of nicotine dependence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据