Is impulsivity related to attentional bias in cigarette smokers? An exploration across levels of nicotine dependency and deprivation.

Research has largely focused on how attentional bias to smoking-related cues and impulsivity independently influence the development and maintenance of cigarette smoking, with limited exploration of the relationship between these mechanisms. The current experiments systematically assessed relationships between multiple dimensions of impulsivity and attentional bias, at different stages of attention, in smokers varying in nicotine dependency and deprivation. Nonsmokers (NS; n  = 26), light-satiated smokers (LS; n  = 25), heavy-satiated smokers (HS; n  = 23) and heavy 12-hour nicotine-deprived smokers (HD; n  = 30) completed the Barratt Impulsivity Scale, delayed discounting task, stop-signal task, information sampling task and a visual dot-probe assessing initial orientation (200 ms) and sustained attention (2000 ms) toward smoking-related cues. Sustained attention to smoking-related cues was present in both HS and LS, while initial orientation bias was only evident in HS. HS and LS also had greater levels of trait motor and nonplanning impulsivity and heightened impulsive choice on the delay discounting task compared with NS, while heightened trait attentional impulsivity was only found in HS. In contrast, in HD, nicotine withdrawal was associated with no attentional bias but heightened reflection impulsivity, poorer inhibitory control and significantly lower levels of impulsive choice relative to satiated smokers. Trait and behavioral impulsivity were not related to the extent of attentional bias to smoking-related cues at any stage of attention, level of nicotine dependency or state of deprivation. Findings have both clinical and theoretical implications, highlighting the unique and independent roles impulsivity and attentional bias may play at different stages of the nicotine addiction cycle.

How is online self-reported weight compared with image-captured weight? A comparative study using data from an online longitudinal study of young adults.

BACKGROUND: Accurate anthropometric measurement is important within epidemiological studies and clinical practice. Traditionally, self-reported weight is validated against in-person weight measurement. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to 1) determine the comparison of online self-reported weight against images of weight captured on scales in a young adult sample, 2) compare this across body mass index (BMI), gender, country, and age groups, and 3) explore demographics of those who did/did not provide a weight image. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a 12-mo longitudinal study of young adults in Australia and the UK was conducted. Data were collected by online survey via Prolific research recruitment platform. Self-reported weight and sociodemographics (for example, age, gender) were collected for the whole sample (n = 512), and images of weight for a subset (n = 311). Tests included Wilcoxon signed-rank test to evaluate differences between measures, Pearson correlation to explore the strength of the linear relationship, and Bland-Altman plots to evaluate agreement. RESULTS: Self-reported weight [median (interquartile range), 92.5 kg (76.7-112.0)] and image-captured weight [93.8 kg (78.8-112.8)] were significantly different (z = -6.76, P < 0.001), but strongly correlated (r = 0.983, P < 0.001). In the Bland-Altman plot [mean difference -0.99 kg (-10.83, 8.84)], most values were within limits of agreement (2 standard deviation). Correlations remained high across BMI, gender, country, and age groups (r > 0.870, P < 0.002). Participants with BMI in ranges 30-34.9 and 35-39.9 kg/m2 were less likely to provide an image. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the method concordance of image-based collection methods with self-reported weight in online research.

Disentangling the effects of cannabis and cigarette smoking on impulsivity.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis smoking and cigarette smoking often co-occur, yet limited research has investigated the potentially different role impulsivity may play when these behaviours occur in isolation, compared with in combination. AIMS: This study examined trait and behavioural impulsivity as a function of both cigarette and cannabis smoking. METHODS: Trait impulsivity (BIS-11) was compared between 44 non-smokers, 76 cigarette only, 47 cannabis only and 58 cannabis plus cigarette smokers. The effects of cigarette and cannabis smoking on behavioural impulsivity (stop-signal and information sampling tasks) were then assessed in 87 of these participants during a laboratory session. RESULTS: Trait impulsivity was significantly higher in cigarette smokers than non-smokers, irrespective of cannabis use, except for motor impulsivity, where cigarette smoking was only associated with elevated trait impulsivity in non-smokers of cannabis. Dimensions of trait impulsivity were significantly positively related to cigarette smoking frequency and nicotine dependence, but not to cannabis smoking frequency or dependence. Smoking cigarettes or cannabis was associated with significantly impaired reflection impulsivity relative to not smoking either substance. However, no additional increases in reflection impulsivity were observed in those who smoked both cigarettes and cannabis. No group differences in response inhibition were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Heightened trait impulsivity appears to be uniquely related to cigarette smoking, whilst the smoking of cigarettes or cannabis is associated with impairments in reflection impulsivity. Improved outcomes for treating cannabis dependence may result from encouraging concomitant cigarette smokers to cease using both drugs simultaneously in order to reduce heightened impulsivity and risk of relapse.

Dissociating wanting and anticipated liking from consummatory liking in smokers with different levels of nicotine dependence.

INTRODUCTION: Incentive Sensitisation theory suggests wanting and liking are dissociable concepts, with wanting, but not liking typically increasing with repeated drug use. Wanting is associated with anticipation of reward, whereas liking relates to pleasure derived from consummatory behaviour. However, numerous studies have conceptualised liking as an anticipatory cognition. This study explores whether levels of nicotine dependence differentially effect wanting and liking responses to smoking-related cues, and whether anticipated and consummatory liking are equivalent, and dissociable from wanting. METHOD: Heavy (HS, mean = 16 cigarettes/day) and light non-daily (LS, mean = 2 cigarettes/day) smokers completed wanting and anticipated liking questionnaires pre-, immediately post-exposure to smoking-related and neutral cues and at session-end. Consummatory liking was measured post-session, immediately after smoking. RESULTS: Wanting and anticipated liking responses were comparable. Smoking-related cues increased wanting and anticipated liking compared to neutral cues. This effect was maintained until session-end. No baseline differences were seen between HS and LS on wanting or anticipated liking, however after cue exposure, and at session-end, HS reported greater drug wanting and anticipated liking than LS. Conversely, HS and LS did not differ on consummatory liking. Analyses confirmed the relationship between wanting and anticipated liking was significantly stronger than wanting and consummatory liking or anticipated and consummatory liking. CONCLUSIONS: Wanting and anticipated liking appear to be overlapping constructs assessing expectations of reward, that are dissociable from consummatory liking. Furthermore, heavier smoking increases drug wanting, but not smoking pleasure. Future attempts to dissociate these concepts should ensure liking is measured during/immediately after consumption.