Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:56:05.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of nicotine and caffeine, separately and in combination, on EEG topography, mood, heart rate, cortisol, and vigilance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2000

DAVID G. GILBERT
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, USA
WILLIAM D. DIBB
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, USA
LOUISETTE C. PLATH
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, USA
STEVEN G. HIYANE
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, USA
Get access

Abstract

Effects of nicotine and caffeine, separately and in combination, were assessed in 12 male habitual smokers in a repeated-measures design. Caffeine (0-mg vs. two 150-mg doses administered in a decaffeinated/sugar-free cola drink post-baseline and 90 min later) was crossed with nicotine (ad libitum own dosing vs. 1.0-mg machine-delivered dose vs. 0.05-mg machine-delivered dose). Participants smoked a total of five cigarettes at 30-min intervals over a 2-hr period. Caffeine and nicotine had large effect sizes on electroencephalogram (EEG) power; however, these effects were modulated by the eyes open versus closed condition, the other drug, and electrode site. EEG effects of open versus closed eyes tended to be of the same size and direction as those of nicotine and caffeine. However, whereas nicotine increased EEG power in some higher frequency bands in some conditions, caffeine decreased EEG power across almost all conditions. Serum cortisol concentration, vigor, and pleasantness were increased by nicotine, but not by caffeine. Level of depressive mood depended on an interaction of caffeine and nicotine. Vigilance performance was enhanced significantly by caffeine and was increased almost significantly by nicotine. The findings were interpreted in terms of common and differential mechanisms of the two drugs.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2000 Society for Psychophysiological Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)