Cognitive processes and motor skills differ in sensitivity to alcohol impairment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research reviews have suggested that cognitive and motor skills are not equally sensitive to a moderate dose of alcohol; they disagree, however, on which type of task is more sensitive to impairment. This issue is addressed in two experiments testing a cognitive and a motor skill task performed by the same person at comparable blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) during a moderate dose of alcohol. METHOD: A motor skill task (PR) and a rapid information processing (RIP) task requiring no learned motor skill were performed in counterbalanced order, and tests on the pair of tasks occurred at intervals as BAC rose and declined. In the first experiment, two groups of male social drinkers (each n = 10) received either a moderate dose of alcohol (0.62 g/kg) or placebo and performed the tasks with no consequence for performance. The second experiment comprised four groups (each n = 14) to verify and extend the results to a situation in which unimpaired performance under alcohol was rewarded on one or both tasks. RESULTS: In both experiments, impairment on the PR task tended to increase and diminish with rising and declining BACs, whereas impairment on the RIP task showed no such pattern. Reinforcement reduced the degree of impairment displayed on each task, but the different task profiles of impairment were still evident. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate how disagreement over the sensitivity of cognitive and motor skills to a moderate dose of alcohol may occur when impairment is only assessed at some particular BACs. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".