Comparable effects of nicotine in smokers and nonsmokers on a prospective memory task.

In a double-blind placebo-controlled study, we examined the effect of nicotine, a cholinergic agonist, on performance of a prospective memory (ProM) task in young adult volunteers. Volunteers were required to complete an ongoing lexical decision task while maintaining the ProM task (responding with a different button press to items containing particular target letters). Half of the volunteers were smokers, half were nonsmokers. Half of each group received a single dose (1 mg) of nicotine nasal spray before completing the task; the remaining volunteers received a matched inactive placebo spray. Nicotine improved performance on the ProM task when volunteers were able to devote resources to that task. Under a variant procedure, where volunteers completed a concurrent auditory monitoring task, ProM performance was impaired under nicotine. Results are discussed in terms of the resource model of ProM, and the arousal model of drug effects. The data suggest that ProM under the conditions tested here is a resource-needy process, and that nicotine can improve performance by increasing available resources. Increased working memory demands that encourage redirection of resources may impair ProM performance, but the conditions under which these deficits emerge depend upon the subjective allocation of resources across tasks, rather than resource availability per se

Comparable effects of nicotine on smokers and nonsmokers on a prospective memory task.

No description supplie

Prospective memory or prospective attention: physiological and pharmacological support for an attentional model

Previous studies have reported that nicotine, a cholinergic agonist, could improve prospective memory (PM) - memory for a delayed intention - in healthy young adults. In the present study, we asked whether nicotine effects on PM performance were attributable to a drug-induced non-specific increase in arousal. Therefore, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the effect of nicotine to the effect of an arousal manipulation on PM performance. All participants were non-smokers; half received 1 mg nicotine via a nasal spray and half received a matched placebo. Within these groups, half of the volunteers were exposed to hard anagrams and exhibited heightened tense arousal, while half of the volunteers were given easy anagrams and showed no change in arousal. These manipulations resulted in four conditions, placebo/low-arousal (n=12), placebo/high-arousal (n=10), nicotine/low-arousal (n=12), nicotine/high-arousal (n=13). All participants completed an ongoing lexical decision task while maintaining a PM intention (to make a separate, non-focal, response to certain items embedded within the ongoing task). When introduced separately, both nicotine and high tense arousal improved PM performance, but when combined, this improvement was eliminated. It is argued that both nicotine and high tense arousal increase attentional resources, specifically improving monitoring of the PM targets, but when combined they no longer produce beneficial effects. Additionally, given that nicotine exerted no effect on physiological or subjective measures of arousal, we conclude that the observed effects of nicotine and of arousal on PM performance are driven by different pharmacological mechanisms. © 2008 Collegium Internationale Neuropsychopharmacologicum

Means and SD of driving anger expression items now and five years ago (n = 774).

Means and SD of driving anger expression items now and five years ago (n = 774).</p

Summary of themes that emerged from coding the text responses to questions regarding changes in driving during the COVID-19 lockdown (regarding oneself and others).

Each theme is ordered by frequency and is presented with an illustrative quote.</p

Socio-demographics of the sample (N = 774).

Socio-demographics of the sample (N = 774).</p

Crude and adjusted odds ratio (OR) for variables associated with change in own driving anger expression based on the four types of aggressive expression.

Crude and adjusted odds ratio (OR) for variables associated with change in own driving anger expression based on the four types of aggressive expression.</p

Distribution of self-reported changes across different types of aggression (N = 774).

Distribution of self-reported changes across different types of aggression (N = 774).</p

Demographic differences between drivers whose aggression had increased, versus those whose aggression is the same or lower (N = 774).

Demographic differences between drivers whose aggression had increased, versus those whose aggression is the same or lower (N = 774).</p

Summary of themes that emerged from coding the text responses to questions regarding changes in aggressive driving over time.

No specific time frame was provided for this question. Each theme is ordered by frequency and is presented with an illustrative quote.</p