Article | Published:

Nicotine effects on associative learning in human non-smokers

Neuropsychopharmacologyvolume 43pages21902196 (2018) | Download Citation


Tobacco smoking is the most common preventable cause of death in the US. Nicotine is considered the primary constituent responsible for tobacco addiction. Its paradoxically high abuse potential may reflect behavioral control by drug-associated stimuli, which appears to play a larger role for tobacco dependence than for other abused drugs. We tested a potential explanation, hypothesizing that nicotine enhances associative learning, the mechanism underlying the conditioning of drug-associated stimuli. Thirty-two non-smokers were exposed to transdermal nicotine (7 mg/24 h) and placebo in a double-blind cross-over study and tested with behavioral paradigms designed to isolate incidental stimulus–stimulus or stimulus–response learning. The stop signal task required speeded gender judgments of face stimuli. A tone signaled when to withhold the response. Unbeknownst to participants, some faces were always paired with stop trials. Nicotine enhanced the facilitation of stop-responses to these stimuli, and the slowing of go-responses when previously stop-associated stimuli were paired with go trials, indicating stronger associations between paired stimuli and the stop signal/stop response. Another task required feedback-based learning of associations between pairs of shape stimuli. Five pairs were made from either ten different stimuli, or from different combinations of two identical sets of five stimuli with correct associations depending on contextual information. Nicotine increased incorrect choices of stimuli that were associated in a different context, indicating stronger stimulus–stimulus associations at the expense of flexible context-adaptive behavior. The results indicate that nicotine can enhance incidental associative learning, a mechanism that may promote the formation of smoking-associated stimuli and cue-controlled drug-taking.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    Yoon PW, Bastian B, Anderson RN, Collins JL, Jaffe HW, Centers for Disease C. et al. Potentially preventable deaths from the five leading causes of death—United States, 2008-2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63:369–74.

  2. 2.

    Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJ. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet. 2006;367:1747–57.

  3. 3.

    Giovino GA, Mirza SA, Samet JM, Gupta PC, Jarvis MJ, Bhala N, et al. Tobacco use in 3 billion individuals from 16 countries: an analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional household surveys. Lancet. 2012;380:668–79.

  4. 4.

    Messer K, Trinidad DR, Al-Delaimy WK, Pierce JP. Smoking cessation rates in the United States: a comparison of young adult and older smokers. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:317–22.

  5. 5.

    Stolerman IP, Jarvis MJ. The scientific case that nicotine is addictive. Psychopharmacol. 1995;117:2–10. Discussion14–20.

  6. 6.

    Anthony JC, Warner LA, Kessler RC. Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, and inhalants: basic findings from the national comorbidity survey. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1994;2:244–68.

  7. 7.

    Rose JE, Corrigall WA. Nicotine self-administration in animals and humans: similarities and differences. Psychopharmacol. 1997;130:28–40.

  8. 8.

    Manzardo AM, Stein L, Belluzzi JD. Rats prefer cocaine over nicotine in a two-lever self-administration choice test. Brain Res. 2002;924:10–9.

  9. 9.

    Freeman KB, Woolverton WL. Self-administration of cocaine and nicotine mixtures by rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacol. 2009;207:99–106.

  10. 10.

    Mello NK, Newman JL. Discriminative and reinforcing stimulus effects of nicotine, cocaine, and cocaine + nicotine combinations in rhesus monkeys. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011;19:203–14.

  11. 11.

    Perkins KA, Grobe JE, Stiller RL, Fonte C, Goettler JE. Nasal spray nicotine replacement suppresses cigarette smoking desire and behavior. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;52:627–34.

  12. 12.

    Benowitz NL, Zevin S, Jacob P 3rd. Suppression of nicotine intake during ad libitum cigarette smoking by high-dose transdermal nicotine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998;287:958–62.

  13. 13.

    Donny EC, Jones M. Prolonged exposure to denicotinized cigarettes with or without transdermal nicotine. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;104:23–33.

  14. 14.

    Barrett SP, Darredeau C. The acute effects of nicotine on the subjective and behavioural responses to denicotinized tobacco in dependent smokers. Behav Pharmacol. 2012;23:221–7.

  15. 15.

    Butschky MF, Bailey D, Henningfield JE, Pickworth WB. Smoking without nicotine delivery decreases withdrawal in 12-hour abstinent smokers. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1995;50:91–6.

  16. 16.

    Di Chiara G. Behavioural pharmacology and neurobiology of nicotine reward and dependence. In: Clementi F, Fornasari D, Gotti C, (eds). Neuronal Nicotinic Receptors. Heidelberg: Springer; 2000. p. 603–50. Vol 144

  17. 17.

    Aubin HJ, Luquiens A, Berlin I. Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: pharmacological principles and clinical practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;77:324–36.

  18. 18.

    Caggiula AR, Donny EC, White AR, Chaudhri N, Booth S, Gharib MA, et al. Cue dependency of nicotine self-administration and smoking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2001;70:515–30.

  19. 19.

    Rose JE. Nicotine and nonnicotine factors in cigarette addiction. Psychopharmacol. 2006;184:274–85.

  20. 20.

    Droungas A, Ehrman RN, Childress AR, O’Brien CP. Effect of smoking cues and cigarette availability on craving and smoking behavior. Addict Behav. 1995;20:657–73.

  21. 21.

    Heishman SJ, Saha S, Singleton EG. Imagery-induced tobacco craving: duration and lack of assessment reactivity bias. Psychol Addict Behav. 2004;18:284–8.

  22. 22.

    Sayette MA, Martin CS, Wertz JM, Shiffman S, Perrott MA. A multi-dimensional analysis of cue-elicited craving in heavy smokers and tobacco chippers. Addiction. 2001;96:1419–32.

  23. 23.

    Abrams DB, Monti PM, Carey KB, Pinto RP, Jacobus SI. Reactivity to smoking cues and relapse: two studies of discriminant validity. Behav Res Ther. 1988;26:225–33.

  24. 24.

    Carter BL, Tiffany ST. Meta-analysis of cue-reactivity in addiction research. Addiction. 1999;94:327–40.

  25. 25.

    Tiffany ST, Cox LS, Elash CA. Effects of transdermal nicotine patches on abstinence-induced and cue-elicited craving in cigarette smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:233–40.

  26. 26.

    Waters AJ, Feyerabend C. Determinants and effects of attentional bias in smokers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2000;14:111–20.

  27. 27.

    Waters AJ, Shiffman S, Bradley BP, Mogg K. Attentional shifts to smoking cues in smokers. Addiction. 2003;98:1409–17.

  28. 28.

    Bradley BP, Mogg K, Wright T, Field M. Attentional bias in drug dependence: vigilance for cigarette-related cues in smokers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2003;17:66–72.

  29. 29.

    Due DL, Huettel SA, Hall WG, Rubin DC. Activation in mesolimbic and visuospatial neural circuits elicited by smoking cues: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:954–60.

  30. 30.

    Smolka MN, Buhler M, Klein S, Zimmermann U, Mann K, Heinz A, et al. Severity of nicotine dependence modulates cue-induced brain activity in regions involved in motor preparation and imagery. Psychopharmacol. 2006;184:577–88.

  31. 31.

    Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Childress AR, Lee GS, Bota RG, et al. Brain metabolic changes during cigarette craving. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59:1162–72.

  32. 32.

    Shiffman S. A cluster-analytic classification of smoking relapse episodes. Addict Behav. 1986;11:295–307.

  33. 33.

    Shiffman S, Paty JA, Gnys M, Kassel JA, Hickcox M. First lapses to smoking: within-subjects analysis of real-time reports. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64:366–79.

  34. 34.

    Caggiula AR, Donny EC, White AR, Chaudhri N, Booth S, Gharib MA, et al. Environmental stimuli promote the acquisition of nicotine self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacol. 2002;163:230–7.

  35. 35.

    Wing VC, Shoaib M. Contextual stimuli modulate extinction and reinstatement in rodents self-administering intravenous nicotine. Psychopharmacol. 2008;200:357–65.

  36. 36.

    Palmatier MI, Evans-Martin FF, Hoffman A, Caggiula AR, Chaudhri N, Donny EC, et al. Dissociating the primary reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing effects of nicotine using a rat self-administration paradigm with concurrently available drug and environmental reinforcers. Psychopharmacol. 2006;184:391–400.

  37. 37.

    Balfour DJ, Wright AE, Benwell ME, Birrell CE. The putative role of extra-synaptic mesolimbic dopamine in the neurobiology of nicotine dependence. Behav Brain Res. 2000;113:73–83.

  38. 38.

    Davis JA, Kenney JW, Gould TJ. Hippocampal alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor involvement in the enhancing effect of acute nicotine on contextual fear conditioning. J Neurosci. 2007;27:10870–7.

  39. 39.

    Gould TJ, Higgins JS. Nicotine enhances contextual fear conditioning in C57BL/6J mice at 1 and 7 days post-training. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2003;80:147–57.

  40. 40.

    Kenney JW, Gould TJ. Modulation of hippocampus-dependent learning and synaptic plasticity by nicotine. Mol Neurobiol. 2008;38:101–21.

  41. 41.

    Zhang TA, Tang J, Pidoplichko VI, Dani JA. Addictive nicotine alters local circuit inhibition during the induction of in vivo hippocampal synaptic potentiation. J Neurosci. 2010;30:6443–53.

  42. 42.

    Lenartowicz A, Verbruggen F, Logan GD, Poldrack RA. Inhibition-related activation in the right inferior frontal gyrus in the absence of inhibitory cues. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011;23:3388–99.

  43. 43.

    Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Automatic and controlled response inhibition: associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008;137:649–72.

  44. 44.

    Hannula DE, Ryan JD, Tranel D, Cohen NJ. Rapid onset relational memory effects are evident in eye movement behavior, but not in hippocampal amnesia. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007;19:1690–705.

  45. 45.

    Logan GD, Cowan WB, Davis KA. On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1984;10:276–91.

  46. 46.

    Gold JM, Bish JA, Iannone VN, Hobart MP, Queern CA, Buchanan RW. Effects of contextual processing on visual conditional associative learning in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry. 2000;48:406–14.

  47. 47.

    Everitt BJ, Robbins TW. Drug addiction: updating actions to habits to compulsions ten years on. Annu Rev Psychol. 2016;67:23–50.

  48. 48.

    Hogarth L, Field M, Rose AK. Phasic transition from goal-directed to habitual control over drug-seeking produced by conflicting reinforcer expectancy. Addict Biol. 2013;18:88–97.

  49. 49.

    Tiffany ST. A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: role of automatic and nonautomatic processes. Psychol Rev. 1990;97:147–68.

  50. 50.

    Davis JA, Gould TJ. Associative learning, the hippocampus, and nicotine addiction. Curr Drug Abus Rev. 2008;1:9–19.

Download references


We thank Drs. James Gold and Ian Stolerman for helpful comments on the manuscript, and Hassan Omar for help with Matlab programming.


This work was funded by R03 DA037509 (B. Hahn).

Author information


  1. Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, P.O. Box 21247, Baltimore, MD, 21228, USA

    • Britta Hahn
    • , Ashleigh K. Wells
    •  & Marie B. Yuille
  2. Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    • Agatha Lenartowicz


  1. Search for Britta Hahn in:

  2. Search for Ashleigh K. Wells in:

  3. Search for Agatha Lenartowicz in:

  4. Search for Marie B. Yuille in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Britta Hahn.

Electronic supplementary material

About this article

Publication history