You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Where the classic study establishes a topic's foundations, the contemporary study shows how modern methods have developed the field. If Olds and Milner (1954) demonstrated behaviourally that the brain contains a reward system, the obvious next question is whether that same reward circuitry can be shown, in living humans, to respond to the cues associated with an addiction — and whether that response might explain craving and relapse. The contemporary study for this lesson is Due, Huettel, Hall and Rubin (2002), "Activation in mesolimbic and visuospatial neural circuits elicited by smoking cues: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging", published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Using fMRI, Due et al. showed that when nicotine-deprived smokers merely looked at smoking-related images, their brains' mesolimbic reward circuitry activated more than to neutral images — direct human evidence for the cue-reactivity at the heart of the biological and learning explanations of addiction. This lesson sets out the study's aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluates it, and shows how it develops the topic beyond the animal, behavioural evidence of the classic study. Substance misuse is treated objectively, in the standard academic register expected at A-Level.
Key Definition: Cue reactivity is the set of physiological, neural and subjective (craving) responses triggered in a dependent individual by stimuli associated with their substance use (people, places, paraphernalia, images). Neuroimaging cue-reactivity studies test whether such cues activate the brain's reward circuitry, providing a neural basis for craving and relapse.
This lesson addresses the Edexcel 9PS0 — Paper 2, Topic 8: Health Psychology requirement to study a contemporary study in the topic in detail. Due et al. (2002) is used as the contemporary study: its aim, method (event-related fMRI of smokers and non-smokers viewing smoking, neutral and target images), results (greater mesolimbic reward-circuit activation to smoking cues in smokers), conclusions, and its methodological evaluation, together with how it develops the topic's biological and learning explanations of addiction. In assessment-objective terms, you should be able to describe the study's aim, method and findings accurately (AO1), apply and connect it to cue reactivity, the dopamine reward pathway and conditioning (AO2), and evaluate its methodology and its contribution — reliability, validity, sampling, cause-and-effect and real-world value — reaching a balanced judgement (AO3).
Connects to…
By the early 2000s, the biological explanation of addiction — a "hijacked" dopamine reward system — was well established from animal work descending from Olds and Milner, and the learning account held that environmental cues repeatedly paired with drug use become conditioned stimuli capable of triggering craving. What was needed was direct evidence, in humans, that such cues actually engage the reward circuitry. The advent of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which detects changes in blood oxygenation (the BOLD signal) as an index of neural activity, made it possible to look inside the living human brain while a person was exposed to drug-related cues.
Due et al.'s central aim was to increase understanding of the brain mechanisms involved in cigarette addiction by identifying the neural substrates activated by visual smoking cues in nicotine-deprived smokers — in effect, to test whether smoking-related images would activate reward-related brain circuitry more strongly in smokers than neutral images do, and more strongly than in non-smokers. The study therefore sought to provide human neuroimaging evidence for cue reactivity and to locate it in specific brain systems.
Key Definition: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measures brain activity indirectly by detecting changes in blood oxygenation (the blood-oxygen-level-dependent, or BOLD, signal) associated with neural activity, allowing researchers to identify which brain regions are more active during a task — here, viewing smoking-related images.
The study used an event-related fMRI design — a laboratory experiment in which brain activation to briefly presented stimuli is measured — comparing smokers with a non-smoking comparison group.
The participants were a group of nicotine-deprived smokers and a non-smoking comparison group (the abstract does not report exact group sizes; the design's logic rests on the smoker-versus-non-smoker and smoking-image-versus-neutral-image comparisons). Testing smokers who were nicotine-deprived was deliberate: deprivation heightens craving, so it maximises the chance of detecting a cue-reactivity response. Including non-smokers provides a crucial comparison: if only smokers show heightened reward-circuit activation to smoking images, the effect can be attributed to the images' learned significance for smokers rather than to any general property of the images.
While being scanned, participants viewed a pseudo-random sequence of three kinds of visual stimulus:
| Stimulus type | Example | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Smoking-related images | Pictures depicting smoking / smoking cues | The conditioned cues whose neural effect is being tested |
| Neutral (non-smoking) images | Everyday images without smoking content | A within-participant baseline for comparison |
| Rare target images | Photographs of animals, appearing infrequently | A target-detection task to keep participants attending to every image |
Participants were required to press a button when a rare target (animal) image appeared. This target-detection task is methodologically important: it ensures participants attend to the whole stream of images (they cannot simply "tune out" the smoking cues), and it provides a comparison condition of attentionally salient, task-relevant stimuli. The fMRI BOLD signal to smoking images was then compared with that to neutral images, and this pattern was compared between smokers and non-smokers.
The choice of an event-related design (rather than presenting long blocks of one image type) is itself worth understanding, because it shapes what the study can show. In an event-related design, the different image types are interleaved in a pseudo-random order and the brain's response to each individual image is estimated separately. This has two advantages here. It prevents participants from anticipating a run of smoking images and bracing against them, which could dampen a genuine cue response; and it allows the smoking, neutral and target responses to be disentangled even though they are all mixed together in the same scan. The design therefore isolates the neural response to a smoking cue as cleanly as fMRI allows, which matters because the effect of interest — a reward-circuit response to seeing a cue — is relatively subtle compared with, say, the response to actually smoking.
Two comparisons then do the analytic work. The within-participant comparison (smoking images versus neutral images in the same brains) controls for stable individual differences in brain activity, since each person acts as their own baseline. The between-groups comparison (smokers versus non-smokers) then tests whether any smoking-versus-neutral difference is specific to people for whom the cues carry learned meaning. Only an effect that appears in the within-participant contrast and is present in smokers but not non-smokers can be confidently attributed to learned cue reactivity — and that is exactly the pattern the study reports.
graph LR
A[Nicotine-deprived smokers vs non-smokers] --> B[Event-related fMRI scan]
B --> C[View pseudo-random images: smoking / neutral / rare animal targets]
C --> D[Press button for rare animal targets]
D --> E[Compare BOLD signal: smoking vs neutral images]
E --> F[Compare pattern across smokers vs non-smokers]
The key result was that, in smokers, the fMRI signal was greater after exposure to smoking-related images than after neutral images in mesolimbic dopamine reward circuitry. In other words, simply viewing smoking cues activated the brain's reward system in smokers — a direct neural signature of cue reactivity.
More specifically, the smoking cues activated a set of reward-related regions in nicotine-deprived smokers, including the ventral tegmental area (the origin of the mesolimbic dopamine pathway), parts of the amygdala (associated with emotional and motivational processing), the hippocampus (associated with memory and context) and the thalamus. In addition — and this is the "visuospatial" part of the study's title — smoking images also engaged attention-related circuitry (regions of prefrontal and parietal cortex, and a visual-processing area), in a way comparable to the attention captured by the rare target images. Critically, the non-smoking comparison group showed no such heightened activation to smoking images.
| Circuit | Regions implicated | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Mesolimbic reward | Ventral tegmental area, amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus | Smoking cues engage the reward/motivation system in smokers — a neural basis for craving |
| Visuospatial attention | Prefrontal and parietal cortex; visual-processing region | Smoking cues capture attention in smokers, much as salient targets do |
| Non-smokers | No heightened activation to smoking images | The effect depends on the images' learned significance for smokers |
The two findings together tell a coherent story: for a dependent smoker, smoking cues are not neutral pictures but motivationally salient stimuli that both activate reward circuitry and grab attention — exactly the dual signature one would expect of a conditioned cue that drives craving and relapse. The involvement of the hippocampus is particularly telling, since it implicates memory circuits: the cues appear to activate the reward system partly by evoking the learned associations and memories built up around smoking, which is precisely what a conditioning account predicts. That the very same cues left non-smokers' reward circuitry unmoved underlines the point that this reactivity is not a property of the images but of what the smoker's brain has learned they signify.
Due et al. concluded that smoking-related cues activate both reward and attention circuits in nicotine-deprived smokers: the mesolimbic reward system responds to smoking cues rather as it responds to addictive substances themselves, while attention systems process the cues as highly salient. The reward-circuit response provides a neural basis for cue-induced craving — the mechanism by which environmental cues associated with smoking can trigger the urge to smoke and precipitate relapse.
More broadly, the study supports an integrated biological–learning account of addiction. It confirms, in humans, that the reward circuitry established by animal research is engaged by drug-associated cues, and it demonstrates that these cues acquire their power through learning (they activate reward circuitry only in smokers, for whom they have been conditioned) — bringing the biological and learning explanations together at the neural level. In doing so it points toward practical implications: because cue reactivity drives relapse, treatments that address cues (cue-exposure and cue-avoidance strategies within relapse prevention) target a mechanism the study helps to localise.
It is worth drawing out explicitly why Due et al. (2002) is a well-chosen contemporary study, because the specification's contemporary-study requirement is precisely about how modern research develops a topic beyond its foundations. Three lines of development stand out.
First, the study moves the evidence from animals to humans. The classic study demonstrated a reinforcing reward system in rats, and much of the biological explanation of addiction rests on animal work. A standing question was therefore whether the same circuitry operates in people and responds to drug cues rather than to direct electrical stimulation. Due et al. answer this directly: using non-invasive fMRI, they show the human mesolimbic reward system — including the ventral tegmental area that anchors the pathway — activating to smoking cues. This is exactly the human corroboration the biological explanation needs, obtained by a method (brain scanning) that did not exist when the reward system was first mapped.
Second, the study integrates two explanations that are often taught separately. The biological account supplies the reward circuitry; the learning account supplies the idea that neutral stimuli become conditioned cues through repeated pairing with drug use. Due et al.'s finding that smoking images activate reward circuitry only in smokers is a neural demonstration of both at once: the circuitry is biological, but its responsiveness to these particular images is learned. The study thus shows the two explanations are not rivals but describe the same phenomenon — cue-induced craving — at different levels, which is a more sophisticated understanding than either alone.
Third, the study reframes relapse. Earlier lessons noted that people often relapse long after physical withdrawal has passed, prompted by the environment rather than by the body's craving for a chemical. Due et al. give this a mechanism: environmental cues activate reward and attention circuitry, generating craving and drawing attention to opportunities to use. This has a direct clinical pay-off, because it identifies cues — not just withdrawal — as a target for treatment, motivating the cue-exposure and cue-avoidance components of relapse prevention. A study that changes how a problem is treated, not merely how it is described, is developing the topic in the fullest sense.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.