Acute Nicotine Alteration of Sensory Memory Impairment in Smokers With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Patients with schizophrenia have a high rate of cigarette smoking and also exhibit profound deficits in sensory processing, which may in part be ameliorated by the acute actions of smoke-inhaled nicotine. The mismatch negativity (MMN), a preattentive event-related potential index of auditory sensory memory, is diminished in schizophrenia. The MMN is increased in healthy controls with acute nicotine. OBJECTIVE: To utilize the MMN to compare auditory sensory memory in minimally tobacco-deprived (3 hours) patients and matched tobacco-deprived smoking controls and to assess the effects of acute nicotine on MMN-indexed sensory memory processing in the patients. DESIGN: Event-related potentials were recorded in 2 auditory oddball paradigms, one involving tone frequency changes (frequency MMN) and one involving tone duration changes (duration MMN). Controls were assessed once under nontreatment conditions, and patients were assessed twice under randomized double-blind treatment conditions involving placebo and nicotine (8 mg) gum. SETTING: Outpatient mental health center. PATIENTS: Twelve smokers with schizophrenia and twelve control smokers. RESULTS: Compared with the controls, the patients showed reduced frequency-MMN (P < 0.001) and duration-MMN (P < 0.04) amplitudes. In addition to prolonging peak latency in duration MMN (P < 0.01), nicotine, relative to placebo, increased the amplitude of the patients' duration MMN (P < 0.01), but not their frequency MMN, to a level comparable with that seen in the controls. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings demonstrate for the first time that acute nicotine can normalize temporal aspects of sensory memory processing in patients with schizophrenia, an effect that may be mediated by activation of α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, the function of which is diminished in schizophrenia. These ameliorating actions of nicotine may have implications for understanding the close relationship between tobacco smoking and schizophrenia and for developing nicotinic pharmacotherapies to alleviate sensory memory impairments in schizophrenia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".