Cited by 107Smoking Behavior and CessationNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects

Smoking after nicotine deprivation enhances cognitive performance and decreases tobacco craving in drug abusers

Bell, Sandra, Taylor, Richard, Singleton, Edward, Henningfield, Jack, Heishman, Stephen·1999·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of nicotine deprivation and smoking on cognitive abilities and tobacco craving. Twenty smokers with histories of drug abuse completed the Questionnaire on Smoking Urges (QSU) and two cognitive tests before and after smoking two cigarettes during two 90-min sessions. After two cigarettes were smoked at Session 1, subjects were tobacco abstinent for 18 h until Session 2 the next morning. Response time on a logical reasoning test was unchanged by tobacco deprivation and was faster after smoking on Session 2. Deprivation slowed responding on a letter search test, which was reversed by smoking to pre-deprivation baseline. Tobacco deprivation increased scores on the QSU; smoking after deprivation reduced craving scores to smoking baseline levels. These results confirmed the utility of the QSU to measure changes in craving induced by tobacco deprivation and smoking. Further, the data suggest that deprivation-induced deficits and smoking-induced enhancements in performance may be specific to certain cognitive domains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14622299050011141

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Tobacco deprivation impairs attention and cognitive abilities within 12 hours of smoking cessation.

    “Tobacco deprivation impairs attention and cognitive abilities within 12 h of smoking cessation [202–204].”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [203]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bell, S., Taylor, R., Singleton, E., Henningfield, J., & Heishman, S.
Affiliations
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Heishman, Stephen
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
1999-03-01
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
45-52
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
OpenAlex
W2015027944
Cited by
107
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Keywords
nicotine deprivation, cigarette craving, smoking, cognitive performance, drug abuse, logical reasoning, letter search, reaction time (psychology), smoking abstinence
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Carbon Dioxide, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Plants, Toxic, Reaction Time, Smoking, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Nicotiana, Substance-Related Disorders

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