↓ Skip to main content

Response inhibition of cigarette-related cues in male light smokers: behavioral evidence using a two-choice oddball paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Response inhibition of cigarette-related cues in male light smokers: behavioral evidence using a two-choice oddball paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01506
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhao Xin, Liu X. Ting, Zan X. Yi, Dai Li, Zhou A. Bao

Abstract

Behavioral inhibitory control has been shown to play an important role in a variety of addictive behaviors. A number of studies involving the use of Go/NoGo and stop-signal paradigms have shown that smokers have reduced response inhibition for cigarette-related cues. However, it is not known whether male light smokers' response inhibition for cigarette-related cues is lower than that of non-smokers in the two-choice oddball paradigm. The objective of the current study was to provide further behavioral evidence of male light smokers' impaired response inhibition for cigarette-related cues, using the two-choice oddball paradigm. Sixty-two male students (31 smokers, 31 non-smokers), who were recruited via an advertisement, took part in this two-choice oddball experiment. Cigarette-related pictures (deviant stimuli) and pictures unrelated to cigarettes (standard stimuli) were used. Response inhibition for cigarette-related cues was measured by comparing accuracy (ACC) and reaction time (RT) for deviant and standard stimuli in the two groups of subjects. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that in all the participants, ACC was significantly lower for deviant stimuli than for standard stimuli. For deviant stimuli, the RTs were significantly longer for male light smokers than for male non-smokers; however, there was no significant difference in RTs for standard stimuli. Compared to male non-smokers, male light smokers seem to have a reduced ability to inhibit responses to cigarette-related cues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Other 2 8%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 11 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 31%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,170
of 29,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,809
of 279,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#423
of 537 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 537 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.