INTRODUCTION: Understanding factors that influence tobacco use often involves detailed assessment of smoking behavior (i.e., puff topography) via mouthpiece-based, computerized devices. Research suggests that the use of a mouthpiece to evaluate topography may alter natural smoking behavior. This study was designed to compare topography measurement using mouthpiece-based methods (i.e., desktop and portable computerized devices) to methods that do not use a mouthpiece (i.e., direct observation). METHODS: A total of 30 smokers (> or =15 full-flavor or light cigarettes/day) participated in six Latin square-ordered, 2.5-hr experimental sessions that were preceded by at least 8 hr of objectively verified tobacco abstinence (carbon monoxide level < or = 10 ppm). Each session consisted of participants smoking four cigarettes (own brand or Merit ultra-light) ad libitum, conventionally or using a desktop or portable device. Sessions were videotaped using a digital camcorder. RESULTS: All three measurement methods were sensitive to oft-reported brand- and bout-induced changes. Topography measurement differed little between methods (across methods, all r values > .68), and each method was reliable (across bouts within each condition, most r values > .78). In contrast, participants perceived the use of either mouthpiece-based device to alter aspects of their smoking behavior (e.g., increased smoking difficulty, reduced enjoyment, altered cigarette taste; p < .05), relative to video recording only. DISCUSSION: Although direct observational methods may be optimal for measuring certain smoking characteristics, logistical challenges posed by this method likely limit its usefulness. Together, these results suggest that mouthpiece-based devices offer a convenient and useful tool for researchers examining smoking topography.
INTRODUCTION: Understanding factors that influence tobacco use often involves detailed assessment of smoking behavior (i.e., puff topography) via mouthpiece-based, computerized devices. Research suggests that the use of a mouthpiece to evaluate topography may alter natural smoking behavior. This study was designed to compare topography measurement using mouthpiece-based methods (i.e., desktop and portable computerized devices) to methods that do not use a mouthpiece (i.e., direct observation). METHODS: A total of 30 smokers (> or =15 full-flavor or light cigarettes/day) participated in six Latin square-ordered, 2.5-hr experimental sessions that were preceded by at least 8 hr of objectively verified tobacco abstinence (carbon monoxide level < or = 10 ppm). Each session consisted of participants smoking four cigarettes (own brand or Merit ultra-light) ad libitum, conventionally or using a desktop or portable device. Sessions were videotaped using a digital camcorder. RESULTS: All three measurement methods were sensitive to oft-reported brand- and bout-induced changes. Topography measurement differed little between methods (across methods, all r values > .68), and each method was reliable (across bouts within each condition, most r values > .78). In contrast, participants perceived the use of either mouthpiece-based device to alter aspects of their smoking behavior (e.g., increased smoking difficulty, reduced enjoyment, altered cigarette taste; p < .05), relative to video recording only. DISCUSSION: Although direct observational methods may be optimal for measuring certain smoking characteristics, logistical challenges posed by this method likely limit its usefulness. Together, these results suggest that mouthpiece-based devices offer a convenient and useful tool for researchers examining smoking topography.
Authors: Saul Shiffman; Xiaoxue Li; Michael S Dunbar; Hilary A Tindle; Sarah M Scholl; Stuart G Ferguson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Sarah Joseph; Nicolle M Krebs; Junjia Zhu; Yijin Wert; Reema Goel; Samantha M Reilly; Dongxiao Sun; John P Richie; Ivan Nikiforov; Pramil Cheriyath; Joshua E Muscat Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Michael S Dunbar; Saul Shiffman; Thomas R Kirchner; Hilary A Tindle; Sarah M Scholl Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Kenneth A Perkins; Nicole Kunkle; Joshua L Karelitz; K A Perkins; N Kunkle; J L Karelitz Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Micah L Berman; M Justin Byron; Natalie Hemmerich; Eric N Lindblom; Allison J Lazard; Ellen Peters; Noel T Brewer Journal: Food Drug Law J Date: 2017 Impact factor: 0.619
Authors: Catalin Marian; Richard J O'Connor; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Vaughan W Rees; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Peter G Shields Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: John L Pauly; Richard J O'Connor; Geraldine M Paszkiewicz; K Michael Cummings; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Peter G Shields Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254