MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023660280 · doi:10.1159/000092541

Neural Effects of Nicotine during Auditory Selective Attention in Smokers: An Event-Related Potential Study

2006· article· en· W2023660280 on OpenAlexaff
Verner Knott, Crystal Blais, Carole Scherling, Jordan Camarda, Anne Millar, Derek J. Fisher, Judy McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychobiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicotineEvent-related potentialSelective attentionPsychologyAudiologyVigilance (psychology)NeuroscienceCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute nicotine has been found to improve task performance in smokers after smoking abstinence, but the attentional processes mediating these improvements are unclear. Since scalp-recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) have been shown to be sensitive indicators of selective attention, the effects of acutely administered nicotine were examined on ERPs and concomitant behavioural performance measures in an auditory selective attention task. Ten (6 males) overnight smoking-abstinent cigarette smokers received nicotine gum (4 mg) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design. In a dichotic listening task [which required participants to attend and detect (target) deviant stimuli in one ear and to ignore similar stimuli in the other ear] which included ERP recordings and assessment of response speed and accuracy measures, nicotine gum failed to alter behavioural performance or amplitudes of ERP components sensitive to selective attention [reflected in the N100 and negative difference (Nd) component] or to pre-attentive detection of acoustic change [reflected in the mismatch negativity (MMN) component]. However, nicotine did influence the speed of these voluntary selective processes, as reflected by shortened latencies of the early Nd component. The findings are discussed in relation to the stimulus filter theory of smoking, and with respect to nicotine's actions on involuntary and controlled aspects of selective attention processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychobiologySame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207