75, p < .05), and simple effects tests showed that in SS sensorimotor replacement reduced Habit Withdrawal Scale scores within PLA conditions (t (25) = 3.52, p < .01) but not NIC conditions (Figure 1). In CS, sensorimotor replacement reduced Habit Withdrawal Scale scores selleck chemicals (F (1, 25) = 12.20, p < .005), with no main effect of Nicotine Replacement or interaction between these factors. There were no significant differences between the VLNC + NIC and usual-brand conditions on any of these measures. Effects of Sensorimotor and Nicotine Replacement on Usual-Brand Smoking Effects of sensorimotor and nicotine replacement on CO boost from the 90-min ad libitum usual-brand smoking periods are shown in Figure 1. There was no effect of diagnosis on CO boost from the ad libitum usual-brand smoking periods (SS: 6.

98 �� 1.0 ppm; CS: 5.98 �� 1.1 ppm), however, there was a significant effect of diagnosis on total volume smoked during the ad libitum usual-brand smoking periods, with higher total puff volume in SS than CS (F(1, 44) = 8.81, p < .01; SS: 2,536 �� 1,656 ml; CS: 1,451 �� 835 ml; not shown). There were significant main effects of sensorimotor replacement on both CO boost and total volume smoked during the ad libitum usual-brand smoking periods (F(1, 54) = 47.05, p < .001; F(1, 44) = 12.93, p < .01, respectively). Means indicated that smoking VLNC cigarettes during the controlled administration periods reduced usual-brand smoking during the ad libitum periods, based on both CO boost (VLNC cigarette: 3.2 �� 0.2 ppm; No cigarette: 9.8 �� 7.

1 ppm) and total puff volume (VLNC cigarette: 1,803 �� 1,420 ml; No cigarette: 2,184 �� 1,498 ml). There was no effect of nicotine replacement or significant interactions among factors on CO boost or total puff volume smoked during the ad libitum usual-brand periods. VLNC Tolerability and Acceptability Comparisons between VLNC cigarettes with and without nicotine replacement and usual-brand cigarettes on CES scores are shown in Figure 2. There were significant main effects of Diagnosis on the Reward, Nausea/Dizziness, Craving Relief, and Enjoyment of Airway Sensations subscales of the CES, indicating that across cigarette types, SS provided higher ratings on these measures than CS (F(1, 50) = 7.94, p < .01, F(1, 50) = 16.04, p < .001; F(1, 50) = 4.14, p < .05; F(1, 50) = 10.77, p < .01; respectively).

There were significant main Cilengitide effects of cigarette condition on the satisfaction and reward subscales of the CES (F(2, 100) = 12. 63, p < .001; F(2, 100) = 8.63, p < .001; respectively). Post-hoc tests indicated that, averaged across diagnostic groups, usual-brand cigarettes received higher satisfaction and reward ratings than VLNC + PLA or VLNC + NIC. There was a significant main effect of cigarette condition and a significant Diagnosis �� Cigarette Condition interaction on craving relief (F(2, 100) = 3.34, p < .