Filter ventilation is a design feature in cigarettes that involves tiny holes near the filter that dilutes mainstream smoke. Filter ventilation alters smoking topography. Smoking topography describes an individual’s pattern of how cigarettes are smoked (Koszowski et al., 2014), including total puff volume, maximum puff velocity, inter puff interval, puff duration, number of puffs per cigarette, and the time to smoke a single cigarette (Pickworth et al., 2003). Smokers increase total puff volume, number of puffs, and number of cigarettes smoked to compensate for the smoke yields of lower tar and nicotine cigarettes achieved by filter ventilation and as measured by standard smoking machine tests (L. T. Kozlowski and O'Connor, 2002). Another means of compensating is vent blocking. Studies have shown that the degree to which a brand is ventilated determines whether it is susceptible to increased carbon monoxide yields because of vent blocking (i.e., removing ventilation) (Strasser et al., 2005, Sweeney et al., 1999). Furthermore, studies show that although greater filter ventilation results in lower machine-determined nicotine and tar yields, because of compensatory smoking, the extent of exposure to toxicants is similar across cigarette ventilation levels (Carroll et al., 2021). Furthermore, filter ventilation may increase toxicant levels because of how the cigarette burns as well as increased risk for lung adenocarcinoma (cancer in the periphery of the lungs) potentially because of the depth of smoke inhalation (Song et al., 2017).

Varying filter ventilation is associated with different subjective effects. Subjective effects of cigarettes include reinforcing effects or sensations that accompany cigarette use. These measures have been used frequently to compare cigarettes with different levels of nicotine, with findings indicating that increases in nicotine dose correspond to increases in both positive and negative subjective effects (Bergeria et al., 2019). Ventilation is found to cause lighter taste in part due simply to the dilution of the smoke by air. Smokers typically report fewer negative effects (e.g., harshness) and more positive effects (e.g., enjoyment) when smoking ventilated cigarettes in the laboratory or when rating own (ventilated) brands (Talhout et al., 2018).

During the process of smoking, there are likely entanglements of subjective effects and topography where each influences the other. Chemosensory cues derived from smoking (such as harshness, impact, taste, and mouth feel) provide cues for nicotine delivery and can play a role in determining puffing behavior (Rees et al., 2012). Ventilation dilutes the smoke and eases puffing (Kozlowski & O’Connor 2002) -- the dilution results in a larger volume of smoke being needed to deliver equivalent nicotine, but the lower concentration of the larger puff results in an experience of less harshness. If ventilation affects smoking topography, which in turn is related to subjective effects of smoking, there may be an indirect relationship between ventilation and subjective effects. This study addresses this gap in research by exploring how these variables are connected and specifically examining one possible direction of these factors: ventilation’s impact on smoking topography and topography’s subsequent impact on subjective effects. Therefore, we will explore a mediating role of smoking topography on the relationship between filter ventilation and subjective effects. Our hypothesis is that, particularly for more highly ventilated cigarettes, the greater the intensity of smoking, the more positive the subjective responses (potentially due to the achievement of satisfying levels of nicotine with reduced harshness of the smoke). The relationship between topography, ventilation, and subjective effects is examined in a secondary analysis of data collected from a large sample of smokers using their own usual brand cigarettes (Donny et al., 2015). We also consider moderated mediation, where topography mediates the relationship between ventilation and subjective effects, and, if so, whether this mediated effect is moderated by demographic/behavioral factors or cigarette characteristics. The results of this research can identify factors that influence positive smoking experiences as well as identify subgroups who need targeted risk communication in order to decrease use and the associated harms.