Table 6.

Studies contributing effect size data for the meta-analysis of orienting attention-response time

Study	Task/Outcome	Hedges’s g	Standard error	n	Agea	% male	Smoking status	Cigarettes per daya	Nicotine dose, mg	Route of administration
Colzato et al. 2005	Cued target detection	0.27	0.23	18	20–30	NR	NSm	NA	7	Transdermal
Ernst et al. 2001b	Letter search	0.61	0.30	9	21–45	33	NSm	NA	4	Buccal
Griesar et al. 2001b	Spatial attention	0.35	0.24	17	24	47	NSm	NA	14	Transdermal
Hahn et al. 2009	Selective attention	0.65	0.25	18	30	50	Sm	21	21	Transdermal
Heishman and Henningfield 2000b	Letter search	0.23	0.27	12	31	100	NSm	NA	8	Buccal
Kleykamp et al. 2005b	ANT	0.01	0.22	20	20	45	NSm	NA	4	Buccal
Meinke et al. 2006-study 1	Cued target detection	0.49	0.23	20	24	40	NSm	NA	2	Buccal
Meinke et al. 2006-study 2	Cued target detection	0.05	0.23	17	23	29	NSm	NA	2	Buccal
Thiel et al. 2005b	Target detection	0.37	0.23	19	24	42	NSm	NA	2	Buccal
Thiel and Fink 2008	Target detection	0.25	0.26	13	26	85	NSm	NA	2	Buccal
Vossel et al. 2008	Target detection	0.73	0.41	24	25	54	NSm	NA	2	Buccal

Nsm nonsmoker, Sm smoker, NA not applicable, NR not reported, ANT attention network test

^aMean value

^bAdministered multiple active nicotine doses