Effects of Conditioned Reward and Nonreward Cues on the Heart Rate Response to Alcohol Intoxication in Male Social Drinkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An exaggerated heart rate (HR) increase following alcohol intoxication has been suggested to reflect sensitivity to alcohol-induced reward. The goal of this study is to verify whether pairing alcohol ingestion with conditioned reward and nonreward cues can influence HR responses to alcohol in previously identified individuals with a low and a high HR response. METHODS: Fifty-six male social drinkers participated in a 2-day study. On day 1, participants consumed 0.75 g/kg of body weight of pure ethanol. A median split of the alcohol-induced HR responses identified groups of low and high HR responders. On day 2, both groups participated while sober in a computer task where distinct auditory and visual cues were paired either with monetary reward or no monetary reward. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to an alcohol challenge, which occurred while they were exposed to either the conditioned cues of reward or to the nonreward cues. RESULTS: The physiological response to alcohol intoxication on day 2 was compared with alcohol-induced HR responses on day 1 (neutral alcohol challenge) for both low and high HR responders. Paired t-tests showed that high HR responders had significantly decreased alcohol-induced HR responses on day 2 in the nonreward condition when compared with day 1. No other relationships between cardiac responses to alcohol and cue conditions were obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The rewarding nature of alcohol can be altered by the context in which it is consumed in a subset of individuals who are sensitive to alcohol's stimulating properties.
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".