Alcohol Effects on the P2 component of Auditory Evoked Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a second part of a research aimed to study the effects of alcohol on the electrophysiological processes in student volunteers. The first part showed that alcohol slowed the Omitted Stimulus Potential (OSP). This work studied the ethanol effects on the parameters (i.e. rate of rise, amplitude and peak latency) of the P2 component of the evoked potentials (EPs) yielded by trains of auditory stimuli. It is hypothesized here that if P2 and OSP waves share some common neural processes then alcohol should also affect these specific parameters. A dose of 0.8 g/kg of alcohol or a placebo (0 g/kg) was administered to two groups of 15 young men who were tested before and again after treatment. The pre-post treatment change in each of the measurements was used to assess the treatment effects. The results showed that compared to placebo, alcohol slowed the P2 rise rate and reduced its amplitude, with no effects on peak latency. The rise rate is more sensitive to alcohol but more resistant to the adaptation process. Alcohol resembles the response inhibition model acting against the adaptation. The rise rate of the P2 and the OSP waves are affected by alcohol in a similar fashion, suggesting similar neural generative mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".