Cited by 23Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study

Differential cigarette-related startle cue reactivity among light, moderate, and heavy smokers

Open access
Cui, Yong, Robinson, Jason D., Versace, Francesco, Lam, Cho Y., Minnix, Jennifer A., Karam-Hage, Maher, Dani, John A., Kosten, Thomas R. +3 more·2012·Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

In this study, we examined the relationship between the level of daily cigarette consumption and the startle response to affective and cigarette-related cues among treatment-seeking smokers. Before receiving any behavioral or pharmacological treatment, 136 smokers attended a baseline laboratory session, during which we recorded their reflexive eyeblink responses to acoustic startle probes while they were viewing pleasant, unpleasant, neutral, and cigarette-related pictures. We found that 1) cigarette-related and pleasant pictures similarly reduced the startle magnitude compared to neutral pictures; 2) the magnitude of startle modulation rendered by pleasant or unpleasant pictures did not differ among light, moderate, and heavy smokers; and 3) startle attenuation by cigarette-related pictures was greater in heavy smokers than in light smokers. These results suggest that similar to pleasant stimuli, cigarette-related cues are motivationally salient for smokers, and that this salience increases with nicotine dependence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.02.003

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cui, Y., Robinson, J. D., Versace, F., Lam, C. Y., Minnix, J. A., Karam-Hage, M., Dani, J. A., Kosten, T. R., Wetter, D. W., Brown, V. L., & Cinciripini, P. M.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Cinciripini, Paul M.
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
37
Issue
8
Pages
885-889
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028022741
Cited by
23
References
52
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA017073)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA 016672, P30CA016672)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Keywords
startle response, eyeblinks, cue reactivity, nicotine dependence, smoking intensity, emotional cues, motivational salience, smokers
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Blinking, Cues, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Smoking, Reflex, Startle, Texas, Smoking Cessation, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review