Intact Preference Conditioning in Acute Intoxication Despite Deficient Declarative Knowledge and Working Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of alcohol on implicit, emotional learning is not well understood, partly because family history, drug use, and task demands influence these processes. The conditioned pattern preference (CPP) task provides a more ecologically valid means to investigate implicit cognition in the lab because it has low demand awareness and relies on learning to associate nonverbal cues with reward. METHODS: This study examined the effects of acute alcohol intoxication on implicit learning using the CPP task in 83 intoxicated and 69 sober young adults. Information on individual drug use, family history, impulsivity, and alcohol expectancies was also collected. RESULTS: Alcohol intoxication affected explicit, but not implicit learning on the CPP task. In addition, participants who reported a positive family history of addiction (FH+) or individual recreational drug use did not exhibit a preference for cues previously paired with reward. CONCLUSIONS: Preference formation on the CPP task recruits motivational neurocircuitry, an effect that is unaltered by alcohol. Group differences in implicit emotional learning on this task may represent neurocognitive differences in individuals at risk for addiction.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".