, 2006; Perkins et al., 1994, 1996; Sayette et al., 2001). Concurrent with testing selleckbio the primary hypotheses, this study examined the associations among the motivational variables to understand their interrelationships. Here, a number of interesting patterns emerged. With regard to the effects of deprivation, there were essentially three aggregations among variables or what could be considered variably overlapping motivational ��channels.�� The first comprised significant associations among subjective craving, Intensity, nervousness, and stress; the second comprised the substantial associations among O max, P max, and Breakpoint, which essentially converged during the deprivation condition; and the third comprised heart rate, which was independent of the other variables.

With regard to the effects of cues, two aggregations were present. The first channel comprised significant cross-sectional associations between craving and elasticity, albeit of modest magnitude, and the second comprised significant associations among tension, nervousness, and stress��a negative affect channel��of moderate magnitudes. These correlational findings are consistent with the heterogeneous relationships previously observed among dependent variables in cue reactivity studies (Carter & Tiffany, 1999). Interestingly, based on the associations for several variables, the current findings support the notion that motivational indices are more strongly interrelated during acute drive states (Sayette, Martin, Hull, Wertz, & Perrott, 2003), albeit with modestly greater coherence observed.

Importantly, however, some caution should be applied to interpreting these findings and several limitations are worthy of consideration. First, not all of the demand indices were sensitive to the effects of deprivation or tobacco cues, which is in contrast to the earlier alcohol cue reactivity study in which alcohol cues uniformly affected demand for alcohol (MacKillop, O��Hagen, et al. 2010). This could be a valid reflection of differences between the two drugs or it may be function of methodological differences between the studies. For example, the current sample size was considerably smaller, and more participants would be likely to have brought the relationships into sharper relief, such as the statistical trends observed.

In addition, this was the first study to link CPT choices to actual outcomes, necessarily constraining the price and consumption within practical experimental parameters, but also restricting the range and potentially Drug_discovery truncating meaningful variability. The most obvious instance of this was baseline ceiling effects, which had major effects on Intensity. A final consideration is that the design did not counterbalance the order of deprivation, meaning that the effects cannot readily be disentangled from possible order effects.

No related posts.