Electrophysiological evidence of nicotine’s distracter-filtering properties in non-smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nicotine-enhanced attentional functions are purported to underlie improvements in behavioral performance in cognitive tasks but it is unclear as to whether these effects involve selective attention or attentional control under conditions of distraction. Behavioral and event-related potential measures were used to examine the effects of nicotine on distractibility in 21 non-smokers who were instructed to ignore task-irrelevant auditory stimuli while they performed a visual discrimination task. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over design, nicotine gum (6 mg) shortened overall reaction times but failed to prevent increased response slowing and errors caused by deviant sounds. Relative to placebo, nicotine did not modulate the early pre-attentive detection of deviants as reflected in the mismatch negativity but it attenuated the amplitude of the deviant-elicited P3a, an event-related potential component indexing the involuntary shifting of attention. Nicotine also enhanced attentional re-focusing back on to task-relevant stimuli following distraction as evidenced by an increased amplitude of the re-orienting negativity. These findings and the behavioral-electrophysiological dissociation seen with nicotine are discussed in relation to theories of attention and smoking motivation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".