Young Adult Smokers' Neural Response to Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels

Adam E Green, Darren Mays, Emily B Falk, Donna Vallone, Natalie Gallagher, Amanda Richardson, Kenneth P Tercyak, David B Abrams, Raymond S Niaura, Adam E Green, Darren Mays, Emily B Falk, Donna Vallone, Natalie Gallagher, Amanda Richardson, Kenneth P Tercyak, David B Abrams, Raymond S Niaura

Abstract

Introduction: The study examined young adult smokers' neural response to graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packs using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Methods: Nineteen young adult smokers (M age 22.9, 52.6% male, 68.4% non-white, M 4.3 cigarettes/day) completed pre-scan, self-report measures of demographics, cigarette smoking behavior, and nicotine dependence, and an fMRI scanning session. During the scanning session participants viewed cigarette pack images (total 64 stimuli, viewed 4 seconds each) that varied based on the warning label (graphic or visually occluded control) and pack branding (branded or plain packaging) in an event-related experimental design. Participants reported motivation to quit (MTQ) in response to each image using a push-button control. Whole-brain blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) functional images were acquired during the task.

Results: GWLs produced significantly greater self-reported MTQ than control warnings (p < .001). Imaging data indicate stronger neural activation in response to GWLs than the control warnings at a cluster-corrected threshold p <.001 in medial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, medial temporal lobe, and occipital cortex. There were no significant differences in response to warnings on branded versus plain cigarette packages.

Conclusions: In this sample of young adult smokers, GWLs promoted neural activation in brain regions involved in cognitive and affective decision-making and memory formation and the effects of GWLs did not differ on branded or plain cigarette packaging. These findings complement other recent neuroimaging GWL studies conducted with older adult smokers and with adolescents by demonstrating similar patterns of neural activation in response to GWLs among young adult smokers.

Keywords: Graphic warning label; cigarettes; neuroimaging; young adults.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Brain regions with graphic warning label activation > control at cluster corrected threshold of p < .001. Note: Brain regions based on contrast of graphic warning label > control at cluster corrected threshold of p < .001. Activity in medial temporal lobe, medial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and occipital cortex was significantly greater in response to pack images displaying graphic warning labels than pack images displaying visually occluded control warnings.

References

    1. Agaku I.T., King B.A., Husten C.G. Tobacco product use among adults—United States, 2012–2013. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2014;63:542–547. (pii: mm6325a3)
    1. Armitage C.J., Norman P., Alganem S., Conner M. Expectations are more predictive of behavior than behavioral intentions: Evidence from two prospective studies. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2015;49:239–246.
    1. Azagba S., Sharaf M.F. The effect of graphic cigarette warning labels on smoking behavior: Evidence from the Canadian experience. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2013;15:708–717.
    1. Bansal-Travers M., Hammond D., Smith P., Cummings K.M. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2011;40:674–682.
    1. Bartra O., McGuire J.T., Kable J.W. The valuation system: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of BOLD fMRI experiments examining neural correlates of subjective value. NeuroImage. 2013;76:412–427.
    1. Beckmann C.F., Jenkinson M., Smith S.M. General multilevel linear modeling for group analysis in FMRI. NeuroImage. 2003;20:1052–1063.
    1. Borland R., Wilson N., Fong G.T. Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: Findings from four countries over five years. Tobacco Control. 2009;18:358–364.
    1. Cameron L.D., Pepper J.K., Brewer N.T. Responses of young adults to graphic warning labels for cigarette packages. Tobacco Control. 2015;24:e14–e22.
    1. Chua H.F., Ho S.S., Jasinska A.J. Self-related neural response to tailored smoking-cessation messages predicts quitting. Nature Neuroscience. 2011;14:426–427.
    1. Denny B.T., Kober H., Wager T.D., Ochsner K.N. A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of self- and other judgments reveals a spatial gradient for mentalizing in medial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2012;24:1742–1752.
    1. Do K.T., Galvan A. FDA cigarette warning labels lower craving and elicit frontoinsular activation in adolescent smokers. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2015;10:1484–1496.
    1. Emery L.F., Romer D., Sheerin K.M., Jamieson K.H., Peters E. Affective and cognitive mediators of the impact of cigarette warning labels. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2014;16:263–269.
    1. Falk E.B. Communication neuroscience as a tool for health psychologists. Health Psychology. 2010;29:355–357.
    1. Falk E.B., Berkman E.T., Mann T., Harrison B., Lieberman M.D. Predicting persuasion-induced behavior change from the brain. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30:8421–8424.
    1. Falk E.B., Berkman E.T., Whalen D., Lieberman M.D. Neural activity during health messaging predicts reductions in smoking above and beyond self-report. Health Psychology. 2011;30:177–185.
    1. Falk E.B., O'Donnell M.B., Tompson S. Functional brain imaging predicts public health campaign success. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2016;11:204–214.
    1. FSL. FMRIB Software Library v5.0. Created by the Analysis Group, FMRIB, Oxford, UK. . (Accessed September 2, 2015).
    1. Hammond D., Fong G.T., McNeill A., Borland R., Cummings K.M. Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl. 3):iii19–iii25.
    1. Hammond D., Reid J.L., Driezen P., Boudreau C. Pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs in the United States: An experimental evaluation of the proposed FDA warnings. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2013;15:93–102.
    1. Heatherton T.F., Kozlowski L.T., Frecker R.C., Fagerstrom K.O. The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. British Journal of Addiction. 1991;86:1119–1127.
    1. Jasinska A.J., Chua H.F., Ho S.S., Polk T.A., Rozek L.S., Strecher V.J. Amygdala response to smoking-cessation messages mediates the effects of serotonin transporter gene variation on quitting. NeuroImage. 2012;60:766–773.
    1. Jenkinson M., Smith S. A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Medical Image Analysis. 2001;5:143–156. (pii: S1361841501000366)
    1. Jenkinson M., Bannister P., Brady M., Smith S. Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. NeuroImage. 2002;17:825–841. (pii: S1053811902911328 [pii])
    1. Kanal E., Borgstede J.P., Barkovich A.J. American College of Radiology white paper on MR safety. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2002;178:1335–1347.
    1. Kraemer J.D., Baig S.A. Analysis of legal and scientific issues in court challenges to graphic tobacco warnings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2013;45:334–342.
    1. Lindquist K.A., Wager T.D., Kober H., Bliss-Moreau E., Barrett L.F. The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2012;35:121–143.
    1. Magnan R.E., Cameron L.D. Do young adults perceive that cigarette graphic warnings provide new knowledge about the harms of smoking? Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2015;49:594–604.
    1. Martin L.E. Effects of plain packaging on decision-making and reward for nicotine cigarettes. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics. 2014;3:63–73.
    1. Mays D., Niaura R.S., Evans W.D., Hammond D., Luta G., Tercyak K.P. Cigarette packaging and health warnings: The impact of plain packaging and message framing on young smokers. Tobacco Control. 2015;24:e87–e92.
    1. Mays D., Turner M.M., Zhao X., Evans W.D., Luta G., Tercyak K.P. Framing pictorial cigarette warning labels to motivate young smokers to quit. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2015;17:769–775.
    1. Munafo M.R., Roberts N., Bauld L., Leonards U. Plain packaging increases visual attention to health warnings on cigarette packs in non-smokers and weekly smokers but not daily smokers. Addiction. 2011;106:1505–1510.
    1. Newman-Norlund R.D., Thrasher J.F., Fridriksson J. Neural biomarkers for assessing different types of imagery in pictorial health warning labels for cigarette packaging: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2014;4
    1. Noar S.M., Hall M.G., Francis D.B., Ribisl K.M., Pepper J.K., Brewer N.T. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies [published online ahead of print May 6, 2015] Tobacco Control. 2015
    1. Nonnemaker J.M., Choiniere C.J., Farrelly M.C., Kamyab K., Davis K.C. Reactions to graphic health warnings in the United States. Health Education Research. 2015;30:46–56.
    1. Peters E., Romer D., Slovic P. The impact and acceptability of Canadian-style cigarette warning labels among U.S. smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2007;9:473–481.
    1. Sanders-Jackson A.N., Song A.V., Hiilamo H., Glantz S.A. Effect of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and voluntary industry health warning labels on passage of mandated cigarette warning labels from 1965 to 2012: Transition probability and event history analyses. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103:2041–2047.
    1. Smith S.M. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Human Brain Mapping. 2002;17:143–155.
    1. Tobacco Labelling Resource Centre. /. (Accessed July 27, 2015).
    1. U.S. Congress Public Law 111-31. H.R. 1256. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. 2009. (Accessed July 27, 2015)
    1. Villanti A.C., Pearson J.L., Cantrell J., Vallone D.M., Rath J.M. Patterns of combustible tobacco use in U.S. young adults and potential response to graphic cigarette health warning labels. Addictive Behaviors. 2015;42:119–125.
    1. Wang A.L., Lowen S.B., Romer D., Giorno M., Langleben D.D. Emotional reaction facilitates the brain and behavioural impact of graphic cigarette warning labels in smokers. Tobacco Control. 2015;24:225–232.
    1. Wang A.L., Ruparel K., Loughead J.W. Content matters: Neuroimaging investigation of brain and behavioral impact of televised anti-tobacco public service announcements. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2013;33:7420–7427.
    1. Webb T.L., Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 2006;132:249–268.
    1. Woolrich M.W., Ripley B.D., Brady M., Smith S.M. Temporal autocorrelation in univariate linear modeling of FMRI data. NeuroImage. 2001;14:1370–1386.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する