Table 1.
Characteristics of the sample.
Fig 1.
Example pictures of the three stimulus categories A) graphical warning notices (translation: Protect children, don’t let them breath in your tobacco smoke); B) warning notices (translation: Smokers die earlier); C) neutral pictures (translation: Wood can be made into anything).
Table 2.
Smokers after smoking: Comparison of new GWLs and neutral cues (Fixed effects analysis q(FDR) < 0.01, T: 2.92–8.0; p < 0.003547).
Fig 2.
Comparison of neuronal responses during the presentation of the new GWLs minus neutral pictures.
Table 3.
Smokers during withdrawal: Comparison of new GWLs and neutral cues (Fixed effects analysis q(FDR) < 0.01, T: 3.35–8.0; p <0.000825).
Table 4.
Non-smokers: Comparison of new GWLs and neutral cues (Fixed effects analysis q(FDR) < 0.01, T: 3.12–8.0, p < 0.001792).
Table 5.
Smokers after smoking: Comparison of new GWLs and old text-only labels (Fixed effects analysis q(FDR) < 0.01, T: 3.29–8.0, p<0.001020).
Fig 3.
Comparison of neuronal responses during the presentation of the new GWLs minus old text-only labels.
Table 6.
Smokers during withdrawal: Comparison of new GWLs and old text-only labels (Fixed effects analysis q(FDR)< 0.01, T: 3.72–8.0; p < 0.000198).
Table 7.
Non-smokers: Comparison of new GWLs and old text-only labels (Fixed effects analysis q(FDR)< 0.01, T: 3.08–8.0; p < 0.002090).
Table 8.
Results of the QSU in smokers and non-smokers before and after the acquisition of the fMRI data.