The effects of self‐administered alcohol‐induced ‘hangover’ in a naturalistic setting on psychomotor and cognitive performance and subjective state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine in as naturalistic a setting as possible whether having an alcohol-induced 'hangover' impairs psychomotor and cognitive performance. PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN: The sample consisted of 71 male and female social drinkers who were tested twice, once at baseline and once after exposure to the study condition. They were randomized into a control group who returned for testing on a prearranged date (n = 33), and a group who were instructed to make arrangements to return the day after a self-determined heavy drinking session (n = 38). Of the 'hangover' group, 13 participants still had a blood alcohol concentration of >1 mg/100 ml at the time of testing and these were analysed separately. All participants were students. MEASUREMENTS: Psychomotor performance was assessed by means of a battery of psychomotor tasks, rate of information processing was tested by the Speed and Capacity of Language Processing Test (SCOLP) and subjective state was assessed by questionnaire measures. FINDINGS: All participants in the 'hangover' group reported subjective and physical symptoms of hangover on the second testing session. Performance was significantly impaired on the hits-key components of the vigilance task, was less accurate on the primary and secondary reaction time tasks and showed greater dispersion in range of ability for participants in the 'acute and hangover' compared to 'control'. Probe memory revealed no significant group effect. Ratings of subjective state revealed significant group differences for the variables 'ability to drive', 'concentrate' and 'react quickly' as well as 'tiredness'. There were no group differences for performance on the SCOLP. CONCLUSION: Hangover had negative effects on self-reported subjective and physical state and subtle effects on performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".