1 puffs, SD = 3.3), for portable (mean difference = 2.4 http://www.selleckchem.com/products/carfilzomib-pr-171.html puffs, SD = 3.0), and for video (mean difference = 1.6 puffs, SD = 3.0; p < .05, Tukey's HSD). We also found several significant main effects of device (F's > 3.9, p’s < .05), as well as a device �� bout interaction for puff duration, F(6, 174) = 2.2, p < .05. Within each device, puff durations were shortest at Bout 1 relative to other bouts, and differences between bouts were least pronounced for video (ns, Tukey's HSD). Longer puffs were observed for video than for desktop or portable at all four bouts (p < .05, Tukey's HSD). Device influenced IPI, with shorter IPIs observed for desktop (M = 16.7 s, SD = 8.1) compared with portable (M = 17.4 s, SD = 7.7) or video (M = 18.3 s, SD = 8.3; ns, Tukey's HSD). Participants took larger puffs when using desktop (M = 58.

7 ml, SD = 20.1) compared with portable devices (M = 48.6 ml, SD = 13.7; collapsed across brand and bout, p < .05, Tukey's HSD). Comparison of topography measurement across methods Data compared for the video-alone condition versus the two device conditions are displayed in Table 3 (cigarette brand by bout). All correlations were high and reliable (r's �� .68, p's < .01). In addition, data from video recordings of participants using each device were significantly correlated with data from each mouthpiece-based device (cigarette brand �� bout; r's �� 0.73, p's < .01). Topography data collected from Bouts 2 and 3 within each condition demonstrated reliability, and correlations yielded by each method were comparable (video [r's �� .80, p's < .

01], portable [most r's �� .78, p's < .01], and desktop [most r's �� .83, p's < .01]). Table 3. Correlation coefficients for data collected via computerized device and direct observation methods Device acceptability Statistical analyses for all acceptability measures are displayed in Table 4. Significant device differences were observed for a variety of items (F’s > 3.7, p’s < .05), although there were no effects of cigarette brand or any interactions between brand and device (F's < 3.1, p's > .05). For the majority of items on which there was a main effect of device (all except ��make smoking less likely��), significantly higher scores were observed for both devices relative to video alone (p < .05, Tukey's HSD). In contrast, ratings between desktop and portable devices did not differ for any measure (ns, Tukey's HSD).

Table 4. Statistical analysis results for the acceptability questionnaire Nicotine and tobacco withdrawal effects Hughes�CHatsukami questionnaire. As Table 1 demonstrates, significant bout �� time interactions were Carfilzomib observed for 8 of the 11 VAS measures (F’s > 4.5, p’s < .05). For ��craving a cigarette/nicotine�� (largest F value for bout �� time interaction), mean scores were similar for each device and both brands at each timepoint. However, within each condition, mean craving decreased from 76.