Testing Augmented Reality for Eliciting Cue-Provoked Urges to Smoke: Toward Moving Cue-Exposure Into the Real World.
Adult
Augmented Reality
Behavior, Addictive
/ prevention & control
Conditioning, Psychological
Craving
Cues
Environment
Extinction, Psychological
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Mobile Applications
Smartphone
Smoke
Smokers
/ psychology
Smoking
Smoking Cessation
/ methods
Tobacco Smoking
/ prevention & control
Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy
Journal
Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco
ISSN: 1469-994X
Titre abrégé: Nicotine Tob Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815751
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 05 2021
04 05 2021
Historique:
received:
23
07
2020
accepted:
03
12
2020
pubmed:
6
12
2020
medline:
27
7
2021
entrez:
5
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cue exposure for extinguishing conditioned urges to smoking cues has been promising in the laboratory, but difficult to implement in natural environments. The recent availability of augmented reality (AR) via smartphone provides an opportunity to overcome this limitation. Testing the ability of AR to elicit cue-provoked urges to smoke (ie, cue reactivity [CR]) is the first step to systemically testing the efficacy of AR for cue exposure therapy. To test CR to smoking-related AR cues compared to neutral AR cues, and compared to in vivo cues. A 2 × 2 within-subject design comparing cue content (smoking vs. neutral) and presentation modality (AR vs. in vivo) on urge response. Seventeen smokers viewed six smoking-related and six neutral cues via AR smartphone app and also six smoking and six neutral in vivo cues. Participants rated their urge to smoke and reality/co-existence of the cue. Average urge to smoke was higher following smoking-related AR images (Median = 7.50) than neutral images (Median = 3.33) (Z = -3.44; p = .001; d = 1.37). Similarly, average urge ratings for in vivo smoking-related cues (Median = 8.12) were higher than for neutral cues (Median = 2.12) (Z = -3.44; p = .001; d = 1.64). Also, greater CR was observed for in vivo cues than for AR cues (Z = -2.67, p = .008; d = .36). AR cues were generally perceived as being realistic and well-integrated. CR was demonstrated with very large effect sizes in response to AR smoking cues, although slightly smaller than with in vivo smoking cues. This satisfies the first criterion for the potential use of AR for exposure therapy. This study introduces AR as a novel modality for presenting smoking-related stimuli to provoke cue reactivity, and ultimately to conduct extinction-based therapy. AR cues presented via a smartphone have the advantage over other modes of cue presentation (pictures, virtual reality, in vivo, etc.) of being easily transportable, affordable, and realistic, and they can be inserted in a smokers' natural environment rather than being limited to laboratory and clinic settings. These AR features may overcome the generalizability barriers of other methods, thus increasing clinical utility for cue exposure therapies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cue exposure for extinguishing conditioned urges to smoking cues has been promising in the laboratory, but difficult to implement in natural environments. The recent availability of augmented reality (AR) via smartphone provides an opportunity to overcome this limitation. Testing the ability of AR to elicit cue-provoked urges to smoke (ie, cue reactivity [CR]) is the first step to systemically testing the efficacy of AR for cue exposure therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To test CR to smoking-related AR cues compared to neutral AR cues, and compared to in vivo cues.
METHODS
A 2 × 2 within-subject design comparing cue content (smoking vs. neutral) and presentation modality (AR vs. in vivo) on urge response. Seventeen smokers viewed six smoking-related and six neutral cues via AR smartphone app and also six smoking and six neutral in vivo cues. Participants rated their urge to smoke and reality/co-existence of the cue.
RESULTS
Average urge to smoke was higher following smoking-related AR images (Median = 7.50) than neutral images (Median = 3.33) (Z = -3.44; p = .001; d = 1.37). Similarly, average urge ratings for in vivo smoking-related cues (Median = 8.12) were higher than for neutral cues (Median = 2.12) (Z = -3.44; p = .001; d = 1.64). Also, greater CR was observed for in vivo cues than for AR cues (Z = -2.67, p = .008; d = .36). AR cues were generally perceived as being realistic and well-integrated.
CONCLUSIONS
CR was demonstrated with very large effect sizes in response to AR smoking cues, although slightly smaller than with in vivo smoking cues. This satisfies the first criterion for the potential use of AR for exposure therapy.
IMPLICATIONS
This study introduces AR as a novel modality for presenting smoking-related stimuli to provoke cue reactivity, and ultimately to conduct extinction-based therapy. AR cues presented via a smartphone have the advantage over other modes of cue presentation (pictures, virtual reality, in vivo, etc.) of being easily transportable, affordable, and realistic, and they can be inserted in a smokers' natural environment rather than being limited to laboratory and clinic settings. These AR features may overcome the generalizability barriers of other methods, thus increasing clinical utility for cue exposure therapies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33277653
pii: 6024488
doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa259
pmc: PMC8095238
doi:
Substances chimiques
Smoke
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
861-865Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA076292
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : R34 DA047598
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Sep 1;111(1-2):58-63
pubmed: 20510552
Addiction. 2009 Oct;104(10):1617-8
pubmed: 19558572
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Mar 04;8:112
pubmed: 24624073
Health Psychol. 1995 Jan;14(1):41-7
pubmed: 7737072
J Abnorm Psychol. 2013 Feb;122(1):264-80
pubmed: 22708884
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Dec 31;8(12):e21643
pubmed: 33382377
Addiction. 2002 Feb;97(2):155-67
pubmed: 11860387
Nicotine Tob Res. 2012 Apr;14(4):383-7
pubmed: 22140145
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002 Apr;70(2):390-7
pubmed: 11952197
Addiction. 1999 Mar;94(3):327-40
pubmed: 10605857
Health Psychol. 2000 Jan;19(1S):57-63
pubmed: 10709948
J Abnorm Psychol. 1988 May;97(2):133-52
pubmed: 3290304
Psychol Addict Behav. 2011 Dec;25(4):733-7
pubmed: 21553947
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2012 Dec;20(6):473-8
pubmed: 22889039
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2007;3:257-84
pubmed: 17716056
Nicotine Tob Res. 2014 Mar;16(3):306-15
pubmed: 24078760
Clin Psychol (New York). 2020 Sep;27(3):
pubmed: 33223628
Br J Addict. 1991 Sep;86(9):1119-27
pubmed: 1932883
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May;18(5):538-46
pubmed: 26453669