Dark adaptation functions and increment thresholds following alcohol ingestion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of alcohol on the central nervous system are widespread. Many of these effects are mediated by changes in the transmission properties of neurotransmitters, including those operating in the retina. Recent findings suggest that alcohol might influence early visual processing (Arden & Wolf, 2000) and it has been proposed that alcohol might induce a state akin to dark adaptation within the retina (Bernhard & Skoglund, 1941; Ikeda, 1963). However, that evidence was indirect. Alcohol has also been shown to have retinal effects beyond the photoreceptors (Bäckström, 1977). To investigate these proposals psychophysically we measured dark adaptation functions following alcohol consumption in two experiments. In a third experiment we used the increment threshold procedure of Hood and Greenstein (1982; 1990) to examine the possibility that alcohol might affect retinal gain control rather than sensitivity. Individuals were tested under both placebo and alcohol conditions (approx. BAC .08 ml/dl). In Experiment 1, thresholds for the detection of a 2 deg circular patch, located 4 deg in the periphery, was measured over a 25 min period following a 3 min bleach at 6250 cd m2. There were no effects of alcohol on either the rod or cone portion of the curve. In Experiment 2, the cone function was measured for a 2 deg white foveal target following bleaching at three different levels. Again, there were no effects of alcohol. In Experiment 3, thresholds were measured for a 60 min arc target superimposed on a circular 7 deg field whose luminance was varied over 4 log units. No differences were demonstrated between alcohol and placebo conditions. These data indicate that alcohol at these dose levels does not affect the recovery of visual sensitivity in the dark, nor gain control at the retinal level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".