The Subjective Effects of Echoes in 525-Line Monochrome and NTSC Color Television and the Resulting Echo Time Weighting

1972 ◽  
Vol 81 (12) ◽  
pp. 907-916 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Lessman
1985 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy K. Hatsukami ◽  
John R. Hughes ◽  
Roy W. Pickens

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e023850
Author(s):  
Catherine S Wall ◽  
Rose S Bono ◽  
Rebecca C Lester ◽  
Cosima Hoetger ◽  
Thokozeni Lipato ◽  
...  

IntroductionIn the USA, Food and Drug Administration regulations prohibit the sale of flavoured cigarettes, with menthol being the exception. However, the manufacture, advertisement and sale of flavoured cigar products are permitted. Such flavourings influence positive perceptions of tobacco products and are linked to increased use. Flavourings may mask the taste of tobacco and enhance smoke inhalation, influencing toxicant exposure and abuse liability among novice tobacco users. Using clinical laboratory methods, this study investigates how flavour availability affects measures of abuse liability in young adult cigarette smokers. The specific aims are to evaluate the effect of cigar flavours on nicotine exposure, and behavioural and subjective measures of abuse liability.Methods and analysesParticipants (projected n=25) are healthy smokers of five or more cigarettes per day over the past 3 months, 18–25 years old, naive to cigar use (lifetime use of 50 or fewer cigar products and no more than 10 cigars smoked in the past 30 days) and without a desire to quit cigarette smoking in the next 30 days. Participants complete five laboratory sessions in a Latin square design with either their own brand cigarette or a session-specific Black & Mild cigar differing in flavour (apple, cream, original and wine). Participants are single-blinded to cigar flavours. Each session consists of two 10-puff smoking bouts (30 s interpuff interval) separated by 1 hour. Primary outcomes include saliva nicotine concentration, behavioural economic task performance and response to various questionnaire items assessing subjective effects predictive of abuse liability. Differences in outcomes across own brand cigarette and flavoured cigar conditions will be tested using linear mixed models.Ethics and disseminationThe Virginia Commonwealth University Institutional Review Board approved the study (VCU IRB: HM20007848). Dissemination channels for study findings include scientific journals, scientific meetings, and policy briefs.Trial registration numberNCT02937051.


SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. A136-A136
Author(s):  
S Brooks ◽  
R G J A Zuiker ◽  
G E Jacobs ◽  
I Kezic ◽  
A Savitz ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Seltorexant (JNJ-42847922), a potent and selective antagonist of the human orexin-2 receptor, is being developed for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Seltorexant also has sleep-promoting properties. Investigating the effects of sleep-promoting medications on driving is important because some of these agents (e.g. GABAA receptor agonists) may be associated with increased risk of motor vehicle accidents. We evaluated the effect of seltorexant on driving after forced awakening at night, using a validated driving simulator. Methods This double-blind, placebo and active-controlled, randomized, 3-way cross-over study was conducted in 18 male and 18 female healthy subjects. All subjects received seltorexant 40 mg, zolpidem 10 mg, or placebo 15 minutes before bedtime. Eighteen subjects were awakened at 2- and 6-hours post-dose, and the other 18 at 4- and 8-hours post-dose. At those timepoints, pharmacokinetics, objective (standard deviation of the lateral position [SDLP]) and subjective effects (using Perceived Driving Quality and Effort Scales) on driving ability, postural stability and subjective sleepiness were assessed. Results For seltorexant, the SDLP difference from placebo (95% confidence interval) at 2-, 4-, 6- and 8-hours post-dose was 3.9 cm (1.26, 6.60), 0.9 cm (-1.08, 2.92), 1.1 cm (-0.42, 2.63), and 0.6 cm (-2.75, 1.55), respectively vs. 9.6 cm (6.97, 12.38), 6.6 cm (3.53, 9.60), 4.7 cm (1.46, 7.85), and 1.3cm (-1.16, 3.80), respectively for zolpidem. The difference from placebo was significant at 2-hours after taking seltorexant, while the difference from placebo was significant at 2, 4 and 6-hours after zolpidem. Subjective driving quality was decreased for both drugs at all time points and driving effort was increased up to 4-hours post-dose for both medications. Subjective sleepiness showed a significant increase compared to placebo 2- and 4-hours after administration of either drug. Postural stability was decreased up to 2-hours after administration of seltorexant, and up to 4-hours after administration of zolpidem. Conclusion Compared to zolpidem, objective effects on driving performance were more transient after seltorexant administration and largely normalized by 4–6 hours post-dose. Support (if any) This work was sponsored by Janssen R&D.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document