Table 2.
Cognitive Task Performance (Mean [SD]) by Group and Experimental Condition
| Control smokers | Smokers with schizophrenia | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Usual brand | VLNC + PLA | VLNC + NIC | Usual brand | VLNC + PLA | VLNC + NIC | |
| Motor speed | ||||||
| MOT latency** | 887 (271) | 919 (240) | 896 (264) | 1,162 (401) | 1,190 (394) | 1,096 (307) |
| Visual sustained attention1 | ||||||
| CPT-II Omissions (%) | 1.40 (2.82) | 3.00 (5.71) | 1.19 (2.48) | 2.83 (5.33) | 3.89 (7.63) | 1.94 (2.52) |
| RVP A′** | 0.99 (0.02) | 0.98 (0.03) | 0.99 (0.02) | 0.95 (0.06) | 0.96 (0.04) | 0.97 (0.03) |
| Visual working memory | ||||||
| DMS 12s accuracy | 81.0 (20.5) | 82.9 (17.1) | 84.8 (17.8) | 82.2 (22.6) | 71.1 (27.6) | 75.6 (18.9) |
| DMS 12s latency** | 3,009 (635) | 3,144 (1,153) | 2,969 (1,030) | 3,917 (1,406) | 3,972 (1,293) | 4,130 (1,863) |
| Inhibitory control | ||||||
| CPT-II commissions (%)++ | 32.6 (25.4)a | 38.1 (28.1)b | 37.8 (29.4)ab | 32.1 (20.4)a | 39.1 (22.1)b | 38.4 (17.1)ab |
| SRT commissions (%)+++ | 1.13 (1.32)a | 2.00 (1.83)b | 1.09 (1.65)a | 0.67 (1.64)a | 2.94 (3.06)b | 1.22 (2.98)a |
| Processing speed | ||||||
| RVP latency++ | 346 (72.8)a | 367 (62.6)b | 346 (71.0)a | 407 (122)a | 426 (112)b | 382 (109)a |
| CPT-II Hit RT++ | 377 (70.1)a | 407 (94.3)b | 382 (77.9)a | 428 (79.9)a | 442 (87.3)b | 413 (78.9)a |
| Response variability | ||||||
| CPT-II Hit RT SE ++ | 6.9 (3.8)a | 9.0 (6.2)b | 7.4 (5.7)a | 8.5 (7.1)a | 11.4 (8.1)b | 8.4 (5.3)a |
Note. VLNC = very low nicotine content cigarette; PLA = placebo patch condition; NIC = 42mg nicotine patch condition; MOT = CANTAB motor screening test; CPT-II = Continuous performance test II; DMS = CANTAB delayed matching to sample test; RVP = CANTAB rapid visual information processing test; SRT = CANTAB simple reaction time test; RT = reaction time.
Asterisks indicate significant effects of group (*p < .01). Plus signs indicate significant effects of condition (++ p < .01; +++ p < .001; conditions with different letters (a, b) are significantly different.
1MANOVA results indicated a significant effect of condition on this domain, but follow-up univariate ANOVAs examining effects on each task were not significant.