Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 201, Issue 1, pp 29–41 | Cite as

The role of attentional bias in mediating human drug-seeking behaviour

  • Lee HogarthEmail author
  • Anthony Dickinson
  • Molly Janowski
  • Aleksandra Nikitina
  • Theodora DukaEmail author
Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

The attentional bias for drug cues is believed to be a causal cognitive process mediating human drug seeking and relapse.

Objectives, methods and results

To test this claim, we trained smokers on a tobacco conditioning procedure in which the conditioned stimulus (or S+) acquired parallel control of an attentional bias (measured with an eye tracker), tobacco expectancy and instrumental tobacco-seeking behaviour. Although this correlation between measures may be regarded as consistent with the claim that the attentional bias for the S+ mediated tobacco seeking, when a secondary task was added in the test phase, the attentional bias for the S+ was abolished, yet the control of tobacco expectancy and tobacco seeking remained intact.

Conclusions

This dissociation suggests that the attentional bias for drug cues is not necessary for the control that drug cues exert over drug-seeking behaviour. The question raised by these data is what function does the attentional bias serve if it does not mediate drug seeking?

Keywords

Human attentional bias Drug conditioning Drug seeking Interference Addiction Abuse Attention Conditioned Behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Biotechnology and Biological Research Council grant (BBS/B/09384) and was completed in the lab of Theodora Duka at the University of Sussex. The authors would like to thank Dr. Mathew Field and Dr. Marcus Munafo for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References

  1. Baxter BW, Hinson RE (2001) Is smoking automatic? Demands of smoking behavior on attentional resources. J Abnorm Psychology 110:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bindra D (1978) How adaptive behaviour is produced: a perceptual–motivational alternative to response reinforcement. Behav Brain Sci 1:41–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter KM, Schreiber TE, Church S, McDowella D (2006) Drug Stroop performance: Relationships with primary substance of use and treatment outcome in a drug-dependent outpatient sample. Addict Behav 31:174–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox WM, Hogan LM, Kristian MR, Race JH (2002) Alcohol attentional bias as a predictor of alcohol abusers’ treatment outcome. Drug Alcohol Depend 68:237–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox WM, Pothos EM, Hosier SG (2007) Cognitive–motivational predictors of excessive drinkers’ success in changing. Psychopharmacology 192:499–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawson ME, Schell AM (1982) Electrodermal responses to attended and nonattended significant stimuli during dichotic listening. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 8:315–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dayan P, Kakade S, Montague PR (2000) Learning and selective attention. Nat Neurosci Suppl 3:1218–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrman RN, Robbins SJ, Bromwell MA, Lankford ME, Monterosso JR, O’Brien CP (2002) Comparing attentional bias to smoking cues in current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers using a dot-probe task. Drug Alcohol Depend 67:185–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. El-Amamy H, Holland PC (2007) Dissociable effects of disconnecting amygdala central nucleus from the ventral tegmental area or substantia nigra on learned orienting and incentive motivation. Eur J Neurosci 25:1557–1567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagerström (1978) Measuring degree of physical dependence to tobacco smoking with reference to individualization of treatment. Addict Behav 3:235–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Field M (2006) Attentional biases in drug abuse and addiction: cognitive mechanisms, causes, consequences, and implications. In: Munafo MR, Albery IP (eds) Cognition and Addiction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Field M, Eastwood B (2005) Experimental manipulation of attentional bias increases the motivation to drink alcohol. Psychopharmacology 183:350–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP (2004) Eye movements to smoking-related cues: effects of nicotine deprivation. Psychopharmacology 173:116–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Field M, Duka T, Eastwood B, Child R, Santarcangelo M, Gayton M (2007) Experimental manipulation of attentional biases in heavy drinkers: do the effects generalise? Psychopharmacology 192:593–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franken IH (2003) Drug craving and addiction: integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological approaches. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 27:563–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Groshek F, Kerfoot E, McKenna V, Polackwich AS, Gallagher M, Holland PC (2005) Amygdala central nucleus function is necessary for learning, but not expression, of conditioned auditory orienting. Behav Neurosci 119:202–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gross TM, Jarvik ME, Rosenblatt MR (1993) Nicotine abstinence produces content-specific Stroop interference. Psychopharmacology 110:333–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hitsman B, Mackillop J, Lingford-Hughes A, Williams T, Ahmad F, Adams S, Nutt DJ, Munafo MR (2007) Effects of acute tyrosine/phenylalanine depletion on the selective processing of smoking-related cues and the relative value of cigarettes in smokers. Psychopharmacology 196:611–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogarth L, Duka T (2006) Human nicotine conditioning requires explicit contingency knowledge: is addictive behaviour cognitively mediated? Psychopharmacology 184:553–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogarth L, Dickinson A, Duka T (2003) Discriminative stimuli that control instrumental tobacco-seeking by human smokers also command selective attention. Psychopharmacology 168:435–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogarth L, Dickinson A, Duka T (2005) Explicit knowledge of stimulus-outcome contingencies and stimulus control of selective attention and instrumental action in human smoking behaviour. Psychopharmacology 177:428–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hogarth L, Dickinson A, Hutton SB, Bamborough H, Duka T (2006a) Contingency knowledge is necessary for learned motivated behaviour in humans: relevance for addictive behaviour. Addiction 101:1153–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hogarth L, Dickinson A, Hutton SB, Elbers N, Duka T (2006b) Drug expectancy is necessary for stimulus control of human attention, instrumental drug-seeking behaviour and subjective pleasure. Psychopharmacology 185:495–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hogarth L, Dickinson A, Wright A, Kouvaraki M, Duka T (2007) The role of drug expectancy in the control of human drug seeking. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Processes 33:484–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hogarth L, Dickinson A, Austin A, Brown C, Duka T (2008) Attention and expectation in human predictive learning: the role of uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B (in press)Google Scholar
  26. Jones BC, Jones BT, Blundell L, Bruce G (2002) Social users of alcohol and cannabis who detect substance-related changes in a change blindness paradigm report higher levels of use than those detecting substance-neutral changes. Psychopharmacology 165:93–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Juliano LM, Brandon TH (1998) Reactivity to instructed smoking availability and environmental cues: Evidence with urge and reaction time. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 6:45–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaye H, Pearce JM (1984) The strength of the orienting response during Pavlovian conditioning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Processes 10:90–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kessler K Controlling the EyeLink eye tracker with E-Prime. Retrieved July 2007, from http://www.eyelinkinfo.com/contact.php.
  30. Lovibond PF, Shanks DR (2002) The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Processes 28:3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marissen MAE, Franken IHA, Waters AJ, Blanken P, van den Brink W, Hendriks VM (2006) Attentional bias predicts heroin relapse following treatment. Addiction 101:1306–1312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McDannald M, Kerfoot E, Gallagher M, Holland PC (2004) Amygdala central nucleus function is necessary for learning but not expression of conditioned visual orienting. Eur J Neurosci 20:240–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merckelbach H, Van Hout W, De Jong P, Van Den Hout MA (1990) Classical conditioning and attentional bias. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 21:185–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palfai TP (2002) Positive outcome expectancies and smoking behaviour: the role of expectancy accessibility. Cogn Ther Res 26:317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pearce JM, Hall G (1980) A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychol Rev 87:532–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pothos EM, Cox WM (2002) Cognitive bias for alcohol-related information in inferential processes. Drug Alcohol Depend 66:235–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pothos EM, Calitri R, Tapper K, Brunstrom JM, Rogers PJ (2008) Comparing measures of cognitive bias relating to eating behavior. Applied Cognitive Psychology (in press)Google Scholar
  38. Premack D, Collier G (1966) Duration of looking and number of brief looks as dependent variables. Psychon Sci 4:81–82Google Scholar
  39. Robbins SJ, Ehrman RN (2004) The role of attentional bias in substance abuse. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 3:243–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of drug addiction. Brain Res Rev 18:247–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosse RB, Miller MW, Hess AL, Alim TN, Deutsch SI (1993) Measures of visual scanning as a predictor of cocaine cravings and urges. Biol Psychiatry 33:554–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sayette MA, Hufford MR (1994) Effects of cue exposure and deprivation on cognitive resources in smokers. J Abnorm Psychology 103(4):812–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schoenmakers T, Wiers RW, Jones BT, Bruce G, Jansen ATM (2007) Attentional re-training decreases attentional bias in heavy drinkers without generalization. Addiction 102:399–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Treisman AM, Gelade G (1980) A feature integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 12:97–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Waters AJ, Shiffman S, Bradley BP, Mogg K (2003a) Attentional shifts to smoking cues in smokers. Addiction 98:1409–1417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Waters AJ, Shiffman S, Sayette MA, Paty JA, Gwaltney CJ, Balabanis MH (2003b) Attentional bias predicts outcome in smoking cessation. Health Psychol 22:378–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiers RW, Cox WM, Field M, Fadardi JS, Palfai TP, Schoenmakers T, Stacy AW (2006) The search for new ways to change implicit alcohol-related cognitions in heavy drinkers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 30:320–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiers RW, Bartholow BD, van den Wildenberg E, Thush C, Engels R, Sher KJ, Grenard J, Ames SL, Stacy AW (2007) Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: A review and a model. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 86:263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of Nottingham, University ParkNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, School of Life SciencesUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations