Table 2.

Summary of first and second cohort replication results in HD

Study	Outcome Measure		Original Cohort (Dose × Time)				Second Cohort (Dose × Time)			Between Cohort Comparison (Dose × Time × Cohort)
		N a	F	P	f b	N c	F	P	f	F	P
King et al., 2011a	BAES
	Stimulation	104	24.5	< 0.0001	0.45	104	17.2	< 0.0001	0.39	1.8	0.13
	Sedation	104	17.7	< 0.0001	0.39	104	8.2	< 0.0001	0.28	0.5	0.46
	DEQ
	Like	104	34.5	< 0.0001	0.51	104	41.4	< 0.0001	0.55	0.6	0.64
	Want More	104	10.4	< 0.0001	0.31	104	8.8	< 0.0001	0.29	0.5	0.72
	Salivary Cortisol	104	0.7	0.62	0.08	103	1.0	0.42	0.1	0.2	0.94
Roche and King 2010	Smooth Pursuit
	Gain	75	28.4	< 0.0001	0.54	103	34.7	< 0.0001	0.51	0.5	0.76
	Pro-saccade
	Latency	77	47.6	< 0.0001	0.63	103	35.9	< 0.0001	0.52	1.9	0.21
	Velocity	77	6.4	0.002	0.28	103	23.7	< 0.0001	0.44	1.3	0.24
	Accuracy	77	4.3	0.015	0.24	103	2.3	0.107	0.15	0.2	0.87
	Anti-saccade
	Latency	77	13.4	< 0.0001	0.39	100	11.6	< 0.0001	0.33	0.4	0.70
	Velocity	77	4.9	0.009	0.25	100	0.6	0.527	0.08	1.6	0.21
	Accuracy	77	6.4	0.002	0.28	100	4.4	0.013	0.21	0.3	0.74
Brumback et al., 2007	DSST	77	26.5	< 0.0001	0.52	104	26.3	< 0.0001	0.46	0.5	0.72
	Pegboard	77	13.7	< 0.0001	0.40	104	17.6	< 0.0001	0.39	1.4	0.22

^aRoche and King 2010 and Brumback et al., 2007 only included subjects who had positive or negative family history of alcohol disorders and, therefore, involved fewer subjects included than King et al., 2007.

^bEffect size as measured by Cohen’s f.

^cEyetracking measures had fewer subjects compared to other measures in both the original and second cohorts due to instrumentation problems.