Fast, but Error‐Prone, Responses During Acute Alcohol Intoxication: Effects of Stimulus‐Response Mapping Complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although moderate doses of alcohol can impair performance on tasks that require information processing, little is known about the locus of the alcohol effects within the processing stream. This study used a psychological refractory period paradigm to investigate the effect of alcohol on the central, cognitive stage of information processing when task complexity is manipulated by altering stimulus-response compatibility. METHODS: Thirty-four healthy male social drinkers were assigned to one of two groups (n = 17) that performed two tasks. Each trial consisted of a task 1 stimulus (tone) followed by a task 2 stimulus (letter) that was presented after one of four stimulus onset asynchronies (50, 200, 500, or 1100 msec). A baseline test of performance was obtained before the groups received a beverage containing either 0.0 g/kg (placebo) or 0.65 g/kg alcohol. Both groups were retested when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was increasing and was decreasing. RESULTS: The alcohol group made significantly more errors in task 1 compared with their drug-free baseline measure during the ascending phase of the BAC curve, and error rates increased to a greater extent for the more complex arbitrary stimulus-response mapping condition. Moreover, this increase in errors continued unabated during the descending phase of the BAC curve. Increasing BACs also slowed performance (longer reaction time), but unlike errors, reaction time returned to drug-free baseline levels when BAC was decreasing. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence that an acute dose of alcohol can impair one aspect of the central, cognitive stages of information processing. The possibility that errors in information processing remain during decreasing BACs even after processing speed has returned to drug-free levels has important practical implications relating to the detrimental consequences of acute alcohol intoxication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".