ALCOHOL INTOXICATION REDUCES IMPULSIVITY IN THE DELAY-DISCOUNTING PARADIGM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine the moderating effects of alcohol myopia on cognitive impulsivity in humans using the delay-discounting paradigm. METHODS: Seventy-six male undergraduate students were randomly assigned to sober, placebo or alcohol conditions. In the delay-discounting task, participants made a series of hypothetical choices between a small, immediate reward and a large, delayed reward. To test the predictions of alcohol myopia theory, participants completed a standard version of the task or one containing cues which impelled the impulsive choice (i.e. preference for the small, immediate reward). Participants also completed a personality measure of impulsivity and the go/no-go task, which assesses motor impulsivity. RESULTS: Intoxicated participants tended to discount delayed rewards at lower rates than sober participants, and blood alcohol level was inversely correlated with delay discounting. The impelling cues did not moderate the effects of alcohol on delay discounting. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol intoxication does not always increase cognitive impulsivity and may lead to more cautious decision-making under certain conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".