Search

Tobacco smoking is the most frequent form of substance abuse. Several studies have shown that the addictive action of nicotine is mediated by the mesolimbic dopamine system. This system is implicated in reward processing. In order to better understand the relationship between nicotine addiction and reward in humans, we investigated differences between smokers and nonsmokers in the activation of brain regions involved in processing reward information. Using [H2(15O)] positron emission tomography (PET), we measured regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in healthy smokers and nonsmokers while they performed a prelearned, pattern-recognition task. We compared two conditions involving nonmonetary reinforcement or monetary reward with a baseline condition in which nonsense feedback was presented. With monetary reward, we found activation in the frontal and orbitofrontal cortex, occipital cortex, cingulate gyrus, cerebellum, and midbrain in both groups. Additionally, monetary reward activated typical dopaminergic regions such as the striatum in nonsmokers but not in smokers. We found a similar pattern of activation associated with nonmonetary reinforcement in nonsmokers, whereas activation was found in smokers only in the cerebellum. The different patterns of activation suggest that the brains of smokers react in a different way to reward than those of nonsmokers. This difference involves in particular the regions of the dopaminergic system including the striatum. In principle these observations could be interpreted either as a consequence of tobacco use or as a primitive condition of the brain that led people to smoke. Supported by related nonimaging studies, we interpret these differences as a consequence of tobacco smoking, even if a short-term effect of smoking prior to the experiment cannot be excluded.

Intermanual transfer for a skilled motor task was studied in two patients with total callosal agenesis, and one with an acquired partial callosal lesion and clinical evidence for disturbed transfer of motor signals. Patients had to draw meaningless figures with one upper extremity (original learning, OL) and to reproduce their mirror-reversals thereafter with the other side (transfer learning, TL). Both directions of intermanual transfer were tested in two conditions, that is, between either proximal or distal muscle groups. Transfer was evaluated by comparing OL and TL performance at the same effector. The main variable of interest was movement time during the first eight trials of OL and TL. All three patients displayed a significant benefit for transfer from the dominant to the non-dominant hand but not vice versa during proximal motor activity. When compared with the performance of healthy subjects tested in almost identical conditions in a previously reported study, the proximal transfer behavior was found to be similar for all patients and the normal group. Although patients exhibited no significant benefit for distal transfer, their non-dominant-to-dominant distal transfer was above the normal range. The similar transfer pattern of the patients and healthy subjects when using proximal musculature suggests that proximal transfer may be subserved by identical extracallosal pathways, most probably by the ipsilaterally descending motor systems. Since non-dominant-to-dominant distal transfer was found to be disadvantageous in healthy subjects, the patients' relative superiority in this condition may reflect missing callosal influences of an inhibitory nature.

We studied intermanual motor transfer for right-to-left or left-to-right direction of transfer between either proximal or distal upper extremity muscle groups. The influence of previously acquired motor engrams (original learning, OL) on learning efficiency of the contralateral side (transfer learning, TL) was examined in 26 right-handed healthy subjects. The task consisted of the drawing of meaningless figures. During TL, OL figures had to be reproduced as vertical mirror reversals. Data revealed a benefit for right-to-left but not left-to-right direction of transfer for time to complete a figure as well as a left-to-right transfer benefit for spatial motor precision. Furthermore, a benefit for intermanual transfer of training between proximal but not distal muscle groups was found when movement time to complete a figure was evaluated. Of special interest was the observation of a disadvantage due to prior contralateral learning for performance at right distal effectors. The asymmetrical transfer benefits with respect to side are in line with previous findings and support the proficiency model and the cross-activation model. Results further showed that intermanual transfer of training might differ with respect to muscle group involvement and suggest that, although primarily facilitating, previous opposite hand training may lead to inhibitory influences on subsequent contralateral reproduction.