Search

Introduction: A method to assess acute reinforcement due to nicotine may aid identification of doses needed to maintain dependence. After describing development of a forced-choice procedure, results are presented from two studies using it to determine the relative reinforcing effects of nicotine dose per se., Aims and Methods: Choice between a higher versus a very low or no nicotine option, via smoking (Study 1, n = 59) and via nasal spray (Study 2, n = 42), was assessed in nontreatment-seeking dependent smokers abstinent overnight. Using a within-subject design, different nicotine levels for each product were administered under blind conditions, initially to assess their discriminability (Study 1: 1.3-17 mg/g each vs. 0.4 mg/g nicotine Spectrum cigarettes; Study 2: 2.5 µg/kg vs. 0 µg/kg nicotine per spray). At the end of sessions for each study, participants engaged in forced-choice trials to assess preference, requiring a fixed number of puffs/sprays for one and/or the other., Results: Confirming the procedure's validity, the choice of the higher nicotine option was significantly greater than that for the very low or no nicotine option in both studies. In Study 1, choice relative to 0.4 mg/g was greater for cigarettes 5.3 mg/g or more but not 2.3 mg/g or less (p = .003 for the interaction of higher content vs. 0.4 mg/g comparison). In Study 2, choice was greater for the nicotine versus placebo spray (p < .005), as nicotine was preferred nearly twice as much as the placebo., Conclusion: This forced-choice procedure may efficiently determine the relative reinforcing value of a nicotine dose per se., Implications: The forced-choice procedure described here may identify nicotine doses that are acutely reinforcing in dependent smokers. A priori research of choice comparisons between small versus zero nicotine doses could inform clinical research in larger and more diverse samples to determine nicotine contents in cigarettes, and perhaps in other commercial products, that are not reinforcing and, thus, likely to reduce the risk of their addictiveness. This procedure may also be applicable to assessing changes in acute nicotine reinforcement due to different product formulations, novel drugs, or other manipulations, perhaps helping inform development of new interventions for cessation or harm reduction., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Rationale: The smallest difference in nicotine that can change a smoker's cigarette preference is not clearly known., Objective: A procedure to efficiently identify the difference in nicotine needed to change cigarette preference could help inform research to gauge effects of a nicotine reduction policy., Methods: Using a within-subject design, we assessed preference for research cigarettes varying in nicotine contents (NIC; 18.7, 10.8, 5.3, 2.3, and 1.3 mg/g of tobacco), relative to a very low nicotine cigarette (VLNC; 0.4 mg/g), in 17 adult-dependent non-menthol smokers abstinent overnight. Only one NIC was compared vs. the VLNC per session, with order of the five NIC contents randomized across sessions on five separate days. Preference for each NIC vs. VLNC was determined by validated forced choice procedure, with those NIC chosen more than VLNC indicating greater reinforcement due to greater nicotine per se. Secondarily, less preference for lower NIC (vs. VLNC), relative to choice for the highest NIC, 18.7 mg/g (vs. VLNC), indexed reduced reinforcement., Results: Overall, NIC choices increased as their nicotine increased, as anticipated. Relative to the 0.4 mg/g VLNC, choice was greater for NIC ≥ 5.3 mg/g but not ≤ 2.3 mg/g. Correspondingly, relative to choice for 18.7 mg/g, choice was less for NIC ≤ 2.3 mg/g but not ≥ 5.3 mg/g., Conclusions: Although replication with larger samples and longer access is needed, results indicate that nicotine reduction to ≤ 2.3 mg/g in cigarettes would attenuate reinforcement. This choice procedure may efficiently inform future clinical trials to assess relative reinforcing effects of smoking reduced nicotine cigarettes.

Introduction: Documenting factors that influence differential sensitivity to acutely inhaled nicotine products requires carefully controlling the amount of exposure (dose), and thus a procedure by which to control such exposure., Methods: We evaluated consistency of puff volume from intermittent acute exposures to smoked tobacco cigarettes (study 1, n = 45, plus a comparison study of uninstructed use with n = 59) and to vaped electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes; study 2, n = 27 naive to e-cigarettes) in adult-dependent smokers. All in primary studies 1 and 2 participated in research administering different nicotine levels in each product under blind conditions, one per session using within-subject designs. In both studies, participants followed an automated instructional procedure on a computer monitor standardizing the timing and amount of exposure to each product during a given trial, with four trials per session, each separated by 20 minutes. Puff volume per trial via Clinical Research Support System (CReSS) was the primary dependent measure to determine consistency across trials via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)., Results: Control over topography with both inhaled products was demonstrated by highly significant ICCs for puff volume across trials. Instructed control with own brand was generally better in study 1 than with uninstructed smoking in the comparison sample, as expected. As intended, reliability of puff volume generally did not differ by menthol preference or sex in either study, but ICCs in study 2 tended to be lower for some men using the placebo e-cigarette., Conclusions: This instructional procedure may substantially improve control over amounts of acute exposure to tobacco or e-cigarette use., Implications: Control over topography in studies of acute exposure to these inhaled products can potentially aid validity of research into differential sensitivity to use, so findings can be attributed to factors of interest and not to variable exposure. Our procedure minimized variability in exposure to the same product and between moderate nicotine products, but remaining differences suggest that compensation for very low or no nicotine commercial products may be difficult to totally eliminate with these instructions alone. Further study is needed to determine this procedure's utility with other inhaled products among experienced users and when comparing different products in between-groups analyses., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Confirming preclinical findings, nicotine in humans (via smoking) enhances reinforcement from nondrug rewards. Recent demonstration of similar effects with nicotine via e-cigarettes suggests they may also occur when using nicotine replacement therapies (NRT)., Methods: Effects of nicotine via NRT patch or nasal spray were assessed on responding reinforced by music, video, or monetary rewards, or for no reward (control). Nontreatment seeking smokers (N = 31) participated in three virtually identical experimental sessions, each following overnight abstinence (CO ≤ 10 ppm). In a fully within-subjects design using a double-dummy procedure, these sessions involved: (1) nicotine patch (Nicoderm 14 mg) plus placebo spray, (2) placebo patch plus nicotine spray (Nicotrol, 2 × 1 mg/trial), or (3) placebo patch plus placebo spray. Session order was counter-balanced., Results: Relative to placebo, reinforced responding due to nicotine via spray or patch was greater for video reward (both p < .01) but not for music reward (both p > .10). Similar results for NRT spray and patch confirms preclinical findings indicating no difference between fast and slow nicotine delivery, respectively, on reinforcement enhancing effects. Withdrawal relief was unrelated to these effects of nicotine via NRT on nondrug reinforcement., Conclusions: Nicotine from NRT has some reinforcement enhancing effects in humans, possibly in a manner consistent with nicotine via e-cigarettes but not tobacco smoking. Our findings could suggest differential dose-dependency of available rewards to enhanced reinforcement by nicotine. Such effects may help contribute to the efficacy of NRT for aiding smoking cessation, but more research focusing on dose-dependency of these nicotine actions is needed., Implications: Acute nicotine from smoking enhances reinforced responding for nondrug sensory rewards. Yet, nonsmoked nicotine, including from NRT medications of patch and nasal spray, may act more selectively across rewards, perhaps due to lower dosing exposure. Our results suggest that nicotine via NRT enhances responding for visual (video) reward, but not from auditory (music) reward, just as in prior results using e-cigarettes. Withdrawal relief from NRT was unrelated to reinforced responding, consistent with positive (and not negative) reinforcement from this nicotine. Further research evaluating the dose-response effects of nicotine may clarify differences in enhanced reinforcement depending on the type of available reward., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Behavioral discrimination of nicotine has only recently been assessed in humans, administered mostly by nasal spray before the newly available Spectrum research cigarettes differing in nicotine content. Here we wanted to explore applicability of these procedures to assess discrimination of nicotine administered by e-cigarettes., Methods: In this feasibility study, 16 adult smokers were tested on ability to discriminate e-cigarettes with nicotine concentrations of 36, 24, and 12 mg/ml, one per session (in that order), from a placebo (0 mg/ml), each identified only by letter code. Reliable discrimination was defined by accurately identifying which was which (i.e. nicotine vs placebo) on >85% of trials (i.e. ≥7 of 8; p < .05). Subjective perceptions were also assessed., Results: Discrimination from placebo was shown with 36 mg/ml and with 24 mg/ml nicotine in 15 of 16 subjects, but only 10 discriminated placebo from 12 mg/ml nicotine. Subjective items previously related to acute nicotine exposure ("how much nicotine", "head rush/buzzed" on 0-100 VAS) generally showed nicotine concentration-dependent effects, as expected, but so did "throat irritation"., Conclusions: Preliminary results confirm feasibility of using our behavioral procedure to assess ability to discriminate nicotine administered via these e-cigarettes, broadening generalizability of this procedure beyond nicotine via nasal spray and smoked tobacco cigarettes. Findings also suggest its applicability with testing discrimination of nicotine via other methods of rapid dosing (e.g., hookah, novel products), including the newer e-cigarette products. Further study with larger samples may identify individual difference and other factors influencing nicotine discrimination administered via e-cigarettes and other products., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Men and women may be differentially sensitive to the acute perceptual responses to smoking cigarettes that vary in nicotine content ("dose") but are matched on non-nicotine constituents., Methods: Dependent adult smokers (43 M, 31 F) took four controlled puffs from Spectrum research cigarettes that were moderate (16-17 mg/g) or very low (0.4 mg/g) in nicotine content, and matched on "tar." To ensure reliable responses, each cigarette was administered singly five times in random order under blind conditions, with one or the other provided every 15 minutes over a 2.5-hour session following overnight abstinence. Subjective perceptions (eg, "satisfying", "how much nicotine") were rated after each cigarette., Results: Subjective ratings differed due to cigarette nicotine content, as expected, and did so differentially between men and women. The interaction of nicotine content by sex was significant for most rated subjective perceptions of the cigarette, as multivariate analyses showed that differences due to nicotine content were highly significant for men (p < .001) but only marginal for women (p = .08)., Conclusions: Relative to men, women's subjective responses to acute smoking are less sensitive to differences in cigarette nicotine content. To our knowledge, this is the first comparison of sex differences in response to very carefully controlled doses of smoked nicotine per se. Further research should examine possible sex differences in nicotine dosing administered by other smoked and nonsmoked methods, as well as the developmental pattern of these differences during onset and during cessation of dependent smoking., Implications: Subjective perceptions of smoking cigarettes varying in nicotine contents differ between men and women. These results with research cigarettes are similar to other studies with carefully dosed nicotine administration by other means, supporting the notion that women, relative to men, are less sensitive to pharmacological factors and more sensitive to nonpharmacological factors in acute cigarette smoking. Future studies are warranted to examine sex differences in other responses to controlled nicotine intake via smoking, and via other smoked and nonsmoked methods of administering nicotine doses.

Background: The effectiveness of nonconsummatory reinforcers habituate, as their ability to maintain reinforced responding declines over repeated presentations. Preclinical research has shown that nicotine can delay habituation of reinforcer effectiveness, but this effect has not been directly demonstrated in humans., Objective: In preliminary translational research, we assessed effects of nicotine from tobacco smoking (vs. a no smoking control) on within-session patterns of responding for a brief visual reinforcer., Methods: Using a within-subjects design, 32 adult dependent smokers participated in two experimental sessions, varying by smoking condition: no smoking following overnight abstinence (verified by CO ≤ 10 ppm), or smoking of own cigarette without overnight abstinence. Adapted from preclinical studies, habituation of reinforcer effectiveness was assessed by determining the rate of decline in responding on a simple operant computer task for a visual reinforcer, available on a fixed ratio schedule., Results: Reinforced responding and duration of responding were each significantly higher in the smoking vs. no smoking condition. The within-session rate of responding declined significantly more slowly during the smoking vs. no smoking condition, consistent with delayed habituation of reinforcer effectiveness. Follow-up analyses indicated that withdrawal relief did not influence the difference in responding between conditions, suggesting the patterns of responding reflected positive, but not negative, reinforcement., Conclusions: These results are a preliminary demonstration in humans that smoked nicotine may attenuate habituation, thereby maintaining the effectiveness of a reinforcer over a longer period of access. Further research is needed to confirm habituation and rule out alternative causes of declines in within-session responding.

Subjective perceptions and self-administration of cigarettes are each influenced by nicotine. Yet, differences specifically due to menthol in perceptions and choice of cigarettes varying in nicotine, and the association between these responses, have not been directly tested. Using a mixed between- and within-subjects design, acute responses to each of two menthol or non-menthol Spectrum research cigarettes, moderate (16-17 mg/g) versus very low (0.4 mg/g) in nicotine contents, were compared following brief abstinence in adult smokers preferring menthol ( n=44) or non-menthol ( n=29) brands. To ensure reliable perceptions, they experienced five exposures to each cigarette, then chose between them. All perceptions and choices were greater for moderate vs very low nicotine, as expected, and the magnitude of difference in four of six perceptions was associated with subsequently greater choice of the moderate nicotine cigarette. Importantly, virtually no differences were found between menthol and non-menthol, as nearly all perceptions, cigarette choices, and the association between perceptions and choice were not moderated by menthol or the interaction of nicotine by menthol. Our results indicate perceptions and reinforcement from cigarettes do not differ due to menthol when nicotine content and smoking topography are carefully controlled. Thus, regardless of menthol, smoking perceptions directly predict self-administration behavior.

Because electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) containing nicotine may relieve smoking abstinence symptoms similar to nicotine replacement therapy medication, we used within-subjects designs to test these effects with a first-generation e-cig in nonquitting and quitting smokers. In Study 1, 28 nontreatment-seeking smokers abstained overnight prior to each of 3 sessions. Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale (MNWS) withdrawal (and craving item) relief was assessed following 4 exposures (each 10 puffs) over 2 hr to e-cigs that either did (36 mg/ml) or did not (i.e., placebo, 0 mg/ml) contain nicotine or after no e-cig. Relief was greater after nicotine versus placebo e-cig (p < .05) but not after placebo versus no e-cig, showing relief was due to nicotine per se and not simple e-cig use behavior. Using a crossover design in Study 2, smokers preparing to quit soon engaged in 2 experimental 4-day quit periods on separate weeks. In weeks 1 and 3, all received a nicotine or placebo e-cig on Monday to use ad libitum while trying to abstain from smoking on Tuesday through Friday. (Week 2 involved resumption of ad libitum smoking.) MNWS and Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU) craving were assessed at daily visits following 24-hr abstinence. Of 17 enrolled, 12 quit for ≥24 hr at least once, allowing test of relief because of e-cig use on quit days. Withdrawal and craving were reduced because of nicotine versus placebo e-cig use (both p < .05). In sum, compared with placebo e-cigs, nicotine e-cigs can relieve smoking abstinence symptoms, perhaps in a manner similar to Food and Drug Administration-approved nicotine replacement therapy products, although much more research with larger samples is needed. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).)

Background: Despite its potential for understanding tobacco dependence, behavioral discrimination of nicotine via smoking has not been formally examined as a function of nicotine dependence level., Methods: Spectrum research cigarettes were used to compare non-dependent with dependent smokers on the lowest content of nicotine they could discriminate (i.e., "threshold"). Dependent (n=21; 16M, 5F) or non-dependent (n=7; 4M, 3F) smokers were tested on ability to discriminate between cigarettes with nicotine contents of 17, 11, 5, 2, and 1mg/g, one per session, from an "ultra-low" cigarette with 0.4mg/g (all had 9-10mg "tar"). All abstained from smoking overnight prior to sessions, and number of sessions was determined by the lowest nicotine content they could reliably discriminate from the ultra-low on >80% of trials (i.e., ≥5 of 6). Subjective perceptions and cigarette choice behavior were also assessed and related to discrimination behavior., Results: Discrimination thresholds (and most perceptions) did not differ between dependent and non-dependent smokers, with median thresholds of 11mg/g for both subgroups. Yet, "liking" and puff choice for threshold cigarettes were greater in dependent but not non-dependent smokers, while cigarettes with nicotine contents below threshold did not support "liking" or choice in both groups., Conclusions: In sum, this preliminary study suggests threshold for discriminating nicotine via smoking may not vary by dependence level, and further study is needed to confirm that cigarettes unable to be discriminated are also not reinforcing., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: The lowest threshold content (or "dose") of nicotine discriminated in cigarettes may differ due to menthol preference., Objectives: Menthol and non-menthol Spectrum research cigarettes differing in nicotine content were used to determine discrimination thresholds., Methods: Dependent smokers preferring menthol (n = 40) or non-menthol (n = 21) brands were tested on ability to discriminate cigarettes (matched for their menthol preference) with nicotine contents of 16-17, 11-12, 5, 2, and 1 mg/g, one per session, from an "ultra-low" cigarette with 0.4 mg/g. Controlled exposure to each cigarette was four puffs/trial, and the number of sessions was determined by the lowest nicotine content they could discriminate on >80% of trials (i.e., ≥5 of 6). We also assessed subjective perceptions and behavioral choice between cigarettes to relate them to discrimination responses., Results: Controlling for Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence score, discrimination thresholds were more likely to be at higher nicotine content cigarettes for menthol vs. non-menthol smokers (p < .005), with medians of 16 vs. 11 mg/g, respectively. Compared to the ultra-low, threshold and subthreshold (next lowest) cigarettes differed on most perceptions and puff choice, but menthol preference did not alter these associations. Notably, threshold cigarettes did, but subthreshold did not, increase choice over the ultra-low., Conclusions: Threshold for discriminating nicotine via smoking may be generally higher for menthol vs. non-menthol smokers. More research is needed to identify why menthol smoking is related to higher nicotine thresholds and to verify that cigarettes unable to be discriminated do not support reinforcement.

Introduction: Nicotine's interoceptive stimulus effects likely help explain smoking's reinforcing efficacy, but human studies have been limited by difficulties controlling dosing via tobacco inhalation. Our objective was to describe a procedure to study nicotine discrimination via smoking., Methods: Dependent smokers abstinent overnight (>12 hours) were first "trained" to discriminate between two cigarettes differing in nicotine content, based on four puffs of exposure, and then tested on whether they successfully acquired that discrimination. After piloting with Quest brand commercial cigarettes, 29 subjects engaged in the main study with cigarettes available through NIDA (Spectrum; 16mg vs. 0.4mg nicotine content). Discrimination training first involved two trials, one with each cigarette, prior to six testing trials. Due to results with the first 20 subjects, the remaining nine received two training trials with each cigarette (four total). Subjective perceptions were also assessed during each testing trial, and puff choice between the two cigarettes available concurrently was assessed after testing, on the last two trials., Results: All five pilot subjects successfully discriminated Quest 1 versus Quest 3 (defined by at least five out of six trials correct, ie, >80%). Yet, only 10 of 20 subjects (50%) were able to discriminate the two Spectrum cigarettes based on two training trials. After changing to four training trials, eight of nine subjects were able to discriminate (89%). Subjective perceptions and puff choice differed between cigarettes more in those able versus unable to discriminate them., Conclusions: With sufficient training exposures, smokers can discriminate nicotine between cigarettes differing in nicotine contents., Implications: The interoceptive stimulus effects of nicotine are critical to understanding reinforcement from cigarette smoking behavior. Because of the very recent availability of Spectrum research cigarettes from NIDA, with specific known amounts of nicotine content, the study of nicotine discrimination in humans via cigarette smoking may now be feasible. Our results demonstrate that, with sufficient training, smokers can behaviorally discriminate nicotine from four puffs' exposure between cigarettes differing in nicotine contents. Future research should evaluate human discrimination of nicotine from greater amounts of cigarette smoke exposure, as well as in response to other procedural variations., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Along with its primary and secondary reinforcing effects, nicotine acutely enhances reinforcement from rewards not directly related to nicotine, particularly those consisting of "sensory" stimuli. Less certain is the magnitude of these effects across types of sensory reinforcers commonly available in the natural environment, especially under different smoking exposure conditions of clinical relevance. This study compared reinforced responding for immediate auditory (music) or visual (video) sensory rewards, or no reward (nonspecific control), due to nicotine via ad lib smoking versus no nicotine (overnight abstinence), in a within-subjects design. Dependent smokers (N = 48; 21 male, 27 female) responded on an operant computer task for small units of the designated rewards during 2 sessions, following overnight abstinence (>12 hr; CO ≤ 10 ppm) or no abstinence (i.e., ad lib smoking). Preferred music and video rewards were each selected by participants to ensure their equal initial reinforcing efficacy. Responding reinforced by music and by video rewards, but not by no reward, was similarly enhanced by ad lib smoking in the entire sample. Yet, in post hoc follow-ups, the smoking-induced increase in responding for music was greater in women versus men, while the increase in responding for video was greater in men versus women. Results confirm the comparability of the reinforcement enhancing effects of nicotine via smoking on both auditory and visual rewards, consistent with the notion that enhanced sensory reinforcement may contribute to persistence of smoking behavior. However, findings also suggest the specific pattern of sensory reinforcers enhanced by nicotine may differ between men and women. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).)

Rationale: The lowest nicotine threshold "dose" in cigarettes discriminated from a cigarette containing virtually no nicotine may help inform the minimum dose maintaining dependence., Objectives: Spectrum research cigarettes (from NIDA) differing in nicotine content were used to evaluate a procedure to determine discrimination thresholds., Methods: Dependent smokers (n = 18; 13 M, 5 F) were tested on ability to discriminate cigarettes with nicotine contents of 11, 5, 2.4, and 1.3 mg/g, one per session, from the "ultralow" cigarette with 0.4 mg/g, after having discriminated 16 mg/g from 0.4 mg/g (all had 9-10 mg "tar"). Exposure to each was limited to 4 puffs/trial. All subjects were abstinent from smoking overnight prior to each session, and the number of sessions was determined by the participant's success in discrimination behavior on >80 % of trials. Subjective perceptions and behavioral choice between cigarettes were also assessed and related to discrimination behavior., Results: The median threshold was 11 mg/g, but the range was 2.4 to 16 mg/g, suggesting wide variability in discrimination threshold. Compared to the ultralow, puff choice was greater for the subject's threshold dose but only marginal for the subthreshold (next lowest nicotine) cigarette. Threshold and subthreshold also differed on subjective perceptions but not withdrawal relief., Conclusions: Under these testing conditions, threshold content for discriminating nicotine via cigarettes may be 11 mg/g or greater for most smokers, but some can discriminate nicotine contents one-half or one-quarter this amount. Further study with other procedures and cigarette exposure amounts may identify systematic differences in nicotine discrimination thresholds.

Background: Recent human studies confirm animal research showing that nicotine enhances reinforcement from rewards unrelated to nicotine. These effects of acute nicotine via tobacco smoking may also occur when consumed from non-tobacco products., Methods: We assessed acute effects of nicotine via electronic cigarettes ("e-cigarettes") on responding reinforced by music, video, or monetary rewards, or for no reward (control). In a fully within-subjects design, adult dependent smokers (N=28) participated in three similar experimental sessions, each following overnight abstinence (verified by CO≤10ppm). Varying only in e-cigarette condition, sessions involved controlled exposure to a nicotine (labeled "36mg/ml") or placebo ("0″) e-cigarette, or no e-cigarette use. A fourth session involved smoking one's own tobacco cigarette brand after no abstinence, specifically to compare responses under typical nicotine satiation with these acute e-cigarette conditions after abstinence., Results: Reinforced responding for video reward, but not the other rewards, was greater due to use of the nicotine versus placebo e-cigarette (i.e., nicotine per se), while no differences were found between the placebo e-cigarette and no e-cigarette conditions (i.e., e-cigarette use per se). For nicotine via tobacco smoking, responding compared to the nicotine e-cigarette was similar for video but greater for music, while both video and music reward were enhanced relative to the non-nicotine conditions (placebo and no e-cigarette)., Conclusions: Acute nicotine from a non-tobacco product has some reinforcement enhancing effects in humans, in a manner partly consistent with nicotine via tobacco smoking and perhaps contributing to the rising popularity of nicotine e-cigarette use., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Acute cigarette smoking may relieve withdrawal and negative affect due to tobacco abstinence to a greater extent in women versus men. Yet, the relative contribution of the cigarette's nicotine content to this sex difference is not clear., Methods: Non-quitting dependent adult smokers (N = 44; 21 males, 23 females) participated in 2 virtually identical sessions, each after abstaining overnight (CO < 10 ppm) and differing only in the nicotine content of the designated cigarette. While blind to brand markings, they consumed a total of 24 puffs in controlled fashion for 2 hr in each session, either from a nicotine (Quest 1, 0.6 mg) or denicotinized (Quest 3, 0.05 mg) cigarette. Withdrawal symptoms were obtained before and after smoking, and negative affect was assessed after each period of cigarette exposure consisting of 6 puffs every 25 min., Results: Men and women did not differ in baseline withdrawal and negative affect due to overnight abstinence, but reductions in each symptom were significantly influenced by the interaction of sex × nicotine/denicotinized cigarette (both p < .05). In men, but not in women, each symptom was generally decreased more by the nicotine versus denicotinized cigarette, and the nicotine cigarette reduced each to a greater degree in men versus women., Conclusions: Sex differences in relief of abstinence-induced withdrawal and negative affect due to the nicotine content in cigarettes are consistent with prior research indicating that nicotine per se, compared to non-nicotine smoke stimuli, is less rewarding in women versus men., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

As has been found in nicotine research on animals, research on humans has shown that acute nicotine enhances reinforcement from rewards unrelated to nicotine intake, but this effect may be specific to rewards from stimuli that are "sensory" in nature. We assessed acute effects of nicotine via smoking on responding for music or video rewards (sensory), for monetary reward (nonsensory), or for no reward (control), to gauge the generalizability of nicotine's reinforcement-enhancing effects. Using a fully within-subjects design, dependent smokers (N = 20) participated in 3 similar experimental sessions, each following overnight abstinence (verified by carbon monoxide <10 ppm) and varying only in the smoking condition. Sessions involved no smoking or smoking "denicotinized" ("denic;" 0.05 mg) or nicotine (0.6 mg) Quest brand cigarettes in controlled fashion prior to responding on a simple operant computer task for each reward separately using a progressive ratio schedule. The reinforcing effects of music and video rewards, but not money, were significantly greater due to the nicotine versus denic cigarette (i.e., nicotine per se), whereas there were no differences between denic cigarette smoking and no smoking (i.e., smoking behavior per se), except for no reward. These effects were not influenced by withdrawal relief from either cigarette. Results that generalize from an auditory to a visual reward confirm that acute nicotine intake per se enhances the reinforcing value of sensory rewards, but its effects on the value of other (perhaps nonsensory) types of rewards may be more modest., (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.)

Background: Nicotine's acute effects on enhancing reinforcement from sensory rewards, shown in animal models, appear to occur with smoking in humans. These effects may vary due to reinforcer magnitude and amount of acute smoke intake (dose)., Methods: In a fully within-subjects design, dependent smokers (n=23) participated in 3 sessions. Each session followed overnight abstinence and involved 4 trials to assess responding via progressive ratio (PR 50%) for sensory reinforcement from high, moderate, or low preference music, or no reward (counter-balanced, 30-s/reinforcer). Sessions differed in smoking prior to each trial: 8 puffs on arrival and 2 puffs/trial ("8+2″), 2 puffs/trial only ("0+2″), or no smoking. Puffs were consumed via CReSS (Clinical Research Support System) to control topography, and smoking involved own brand to ensure palatability and increase generalizability of results., Results: Reinforced responding was influenced by main effects of smoking condition (p<.05) and music reward type (p<.001). Compared to no smoking, responding for music was increased after smoking 8+2/trial puffs (p<.005), but not after 0+2/trial puffs. Smoking condition significantly increased reinforced responding only for the high preference music (p=.01), and not for moderate or low preference music, or for no reward. Withdrawal did not differ between the two smoking sessions, ruling out withdrawal relief as an explanation for differential reinforcement enhancement., Conclusions: Our findings confirm that just one cigarette after abstinence is sufficient for reinforcement enhancing effects and suggest that such enhancement is greater as magnitude of a reward's reinforcing efficacy increases., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: In animals, nicotine enhances reinforcement from stimuli unrelated to nicotine intake. Human research is suggestive but has not clearly shown a similar influence of nicotine., Objectives: We assessed acute effects of nicotine via smoking on enhancement of positive (money, music) or negative (termination of noise) reinforcers, or no "reward" (control). These different rewards determined the generalizability of nicotine effects., Materials and Methods: Dependent (n = 25) and nondependent (n = 27) smokers participated in three sessions, each after overnight abstinence. Using a within-subjects design, sessions involved no smoking or smoking denicotinized (0.05 mg) or nicotine (0.6 mg) Quest(R) brand cigarettes. For comparison, a fourth session involved no abstinence prior to smoking one's own brand to gauge responses under typical nicotine satiation. Reinforcement was assessed by responses on a simple operant computer task for the rewards, each available singly on a progressive ratio schedule during separate trials., Results: The reinforcing effect of music, but not other rewards, was greater due to the nicotine cigarette, compared to the denicotinized cigarette or no smoking. Reinforcement enhancing effects of nicotine did not differ between dependent and nondependent groups, indicating no influence of withdrawal relief. Responding due to acute nicotine after abstinence was very similar to responding to one's own brand after no abstinence., Conclusions: Acute nicotine intake per se from smoking after abstinence enhances the reinforcing value of rewards unassociated with smoking, perhaps in a manner comparable to ad lib smoking after no abstinence. Nicotine's reinforcement enhancing effects may be specific to certain rewards, perhaps those sensory in nature.

Smoking behavior may be more persistent among those who expect that smoking will relieve negative affect (NA). Assessing smoking expectancies temporally close to mood situations could enhance the predictive value of that assessment. Dependent smokers (n = 71; 43 male, 28 female) participated in five laboratory sessions, each involving mood induction. The NA relief scale of the Smoking Consequences Questionnaire-Adult (SCQ-A), a very common measure of smoking expectancies during hypothetical situations, was assessed during initial screening. The SCQ-A was compared with a modified acute version administered each session, in which items asked about immediate expectancy for NA relief by smoking "right now" (termed Immediate Negative Affect Relief, or INAR). Actual NA relief due to smoking was measured each session by change on the NA scale of the Diener & Emmons Mood Form. The five sessions (counterbalanced) involved three different negative mood tasks, the negative mood condition of overnight smoking abstinence, and neutral mood (control). Generalized estimating equations showed that temporal proximity to the mood situation slightly enhanced the ability of expectancy to predict actual change in NA due to smoking, as the interaction with condition was significant for the INAR but marginal for the SCQ-A. However, the acute INAR predicted NA relief due to smoking only after overnight smoking abstinence and not during the other specific mood induction conditions, contrary to expectations, while the SCQ-A was not significant during any of the individual conditions. In sum, assessment of expectancy for NA relief may be of limited use in predicting actual NA relief from smoking during a current mood situation, aside from NA due to overnight abstinence.

Background: Smoking acutely relieves negative affect (NA) due to smoking abstinence but may not relieve NA from other sources, such as stressors., Methods: Dependent smokers (n = 104) randomly assigned to one of three smoking conditions (nicotine or denicotinized cigarettes, or no smoking) completed four negative mood induction procedures (one per session): 1) overnight smoking abstinence, 2) challenging computer task, 3) public speech preparation, and 4) watching negative mood slides. A fifth session involved a neutral mood control. The two smoking groups took four puffs on their assigned cigarette and then smoked those same cigarettes ad libitum during continued mood induction. All subjects rated their level of NA and positive affect on several measures (Mood Form, Positive and Negative Affect Scale, Stress-Arousal Checklist, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-state). They also rated craving and withdrawal., Results: Negative affect relief from smoking depended on the NA source (i.e., mood induction procedure) and the affect measure. Smoking robustly relieved NA due to abstinence on all four measures but only modestly relieved NA due to the other sources and typically on only some measures. Smoking's effects on positive affect and withdrawal were similar to effects on NA, but relief of craving depended less on NA source. Smoking reinforcement only partly matched the pattern of NA relief. Few responses differed between the nicotine and denicotinized smoking groups., Conclusions: Acute NA relief from smoking depends on the situation and the affect measure used but may not depend on nicotine intake. These results challenge the common assumption that smoking, and nicotine in particular, broadly alleviates NA., (Copyright 2010 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Initial sensitivity to nicotine's effects during early exposure to tobacco may relate to dependence vulnerability. We examined the association of initial nicotine sensitivity with individual difference factors of sex, other drug use history (i.e. cross-tolerance or cross-sensitization), and parental smoking status in young adult nonsmokers (N=131). Participants engaged in 4 sessions, the first 3 to assess the dose-response effects of nasal spray nicotine (0, 5, 10 microg/kg) on rewarding, mood, physiological, sensory processing, and performance effects, and the fourth to assess nicotine reinforcement using a choice procedure. Men had greater initial sensitivity than women to some self-reported effects of nicotine related to reward and incentive salience and to impairment in sensory processing, but men and women did not differ on most other effects. Prior marijuana use was associated with greater nicotine reward, nicotine reinforcement was greater in men versus women among those with prior marijuana use, and having parents who smoked was related to increased incentive salience. However, history of other drug use and parental smoking were not otherwise associated with initial nicotine sensitivity. These findings warrant replication with other methods of nicotine administration, especially cigarette smoking, and in more diverse samples of subjects naïve to nicotine. Yet, they suggest that sex differences in initial sensitivity to nicotine reward occur before the onset of dependence. They also suggest that parental smoking may not increase risk of nicotine dependence in offspring by altering initial nicotine sensitivity, and that cross-tolerance between other drugs and nicotine may not be robust in humans.

Rationale: Impulsivity is related to greater risk of nicotine dependence, perhaps by enhancing sensitivity to nicotine's reinforcing and rewarding effects during initial smoking experiences., Objective: We examined the influence of impulsivity characteristics on acute sensitivity to nicotine reward, reinforcement, and other effects in 131 young adult nonsmokers., Materials and Methods: Participants engaged in four sessions: the first three to assess dose-response effects of nasal spray nicotine (0, 5, 10 microg/kg) on reward, as well as mood, physiological, and performance effects, and the fourth to assess nicotine reinforcement using a choice procedure. Five impulsivity factors, derived from factor analysis of self-report (e.g., Barratt Impulsivity Scale, Sensation-Seeking Scale, Novelty seeking) and computer (stop-go, delay discounting, probability discounting) measures of impulsivity, were labeled "novelty seeking", "response disinhibition", "extraversion", "inhibition", and "probability/delay discounting"., Results: The associations of novelty seeking with nicotine reinforcement and reward tended to move in opposite directions by sex, generally being directly related in men but inversely or unrelated in women. Similarly, response disinhibition was associated with reward and some mood responses to nicotine that differed by sex. Extraversion was inversely associated with nicotine reinforcement. Characteristics loading on to the other impulsivity factors had little association with nicotine sensitivity., Conclusions: These results are preliminary, but they suggest that characteristics broadly related to impulsivity, especially novelty seeking and response disinhibition, are associated with initial sensitivity to some effects of acute nicotine, including reinforcement and reward, and may do so differentially between men and women.

Genetic variation may influence initial sensitivity to nicotine (i.e. during early tobacco exposure), perhaps helping to explain differential vulnerability to nicotine dependence. This study explored associations of functional candidate gene polymorphisms with initial sensitivity to nicotine in 101 young adult nonsmokers of European ancestry. Nicotine (0, 5, 10 microg/kg) was administered through nasal spray followed by mood, nicotine reward (e.g. 'liking') and perception (e.g. 'feel effects') measures, physiological responses, sensory processing (prepulse inhibition of startle), and performance tasks. Nicotine reinforcement was assessed in a separate session using a nicotine versus placebo spray choice procedure. For the dopamine D4 receptor [DRD4 variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR)], presence of the 7-repeat allele was associated with greater aversive responses to nicotine (decreases in 'vigor', positive affect, and rapid information processing; increased cortisol) and reduced nicotine choice. Individuals with at least one DRD4 7-repeat allele also reported increased 'feel effects' and greater startle response, but in men only. Other genetic associations were also observed in men but not women, such as greater 'feel effects' and anger, and reduced fatigue, in the dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2 C957T single nucleotide polymorphism) TT versus CT or CC genotypes. Very few or no significant associations were seen for the DRD2/ANKK1 TaqIA polymorphism, the serotonin transporter promoter VNTR or 5HTTLPR (SLC6A4), the dopamine transporter 3' VNTR (SLC6A3), and the mu opioid receptor A118G single nucleotide polymorphism (mu opioid receptor polymorphism 1). Although these results are preliminary, this study is the first to suggest that genetic polymorphisms related to function in the dopamine D4, and perhaps D2, receptor may modulate initial sensitivity to nicotine before the onset of dependence and may do so differentially between men and women.

Greater sensitivity to early exposure to tobacco smoking may predict higher risk of becoming nicotine dependent. The most common measure of this sensitivity is the retrospective self-report Early Smoking Experiences (ESE) questionnaire. We examined the relationship between responses to the retrospective ESE and prospectively assessed sensitivity to nicotine via nasal spray in young adult nonsmokers (N = 58) with modest lifetime smoking experience (>0 but < or =10 lifetime uses). Nicotine spray (0 vs 10 microg/kg) was used due to ethical and practical concerns with administering tobacco smoke to nonsmokers. Responses to cigarette smoking on the retrospective ESE items of pleasant, unpleasant, nausea, relaxed, dizzy, and buzzed were compared with prospectively assessed nicotine spray effects (NSE) on the same responses. ESE responses were also compared with subjective spray ratings of nicotine reward (e.g., "liking") and perception (e.g., "feel the effects"), cardiovascular activity, and nicotine reinforcement via a nicotine spray choice procedure. Results showed that the retrospective ESE items of dizzy and buzzed were each associated with greater prospective NSE dizzy and buzzed responses to nasal spray nicotine. However, the other four ESE items were unrelated to the corresponding NSE items. Responses to some ESE items were also related to prospective nicotine spray reward and perception, but no ESE item was related to the cardiovascular or reinforcing effects of nicotine spray. These findings show that two of six retrospective ESE items, dizzy and buzzed, predicted the same prospectively assessed responses to acute nicotine via spray in young adult nonsmokers and may reflect a stable and reliable response to nicotine intake.