The impacts of caffeine administration, expectancies, and related stimuli on coffee craving, withdrawal, and self-administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caffeine is the most commonly consumed psychoactive substance, yet its potential reinforcing properties have been understudied. AIMS: This study examined the impact of caffeine administration and expectancy on coffee-related craving, withdrawal, and cue reactivity via a balanced-placebo design. METHODS: Following 18-h caffeine abstinence, 65 daily coffee consumers (54% male) received either caffeine-containing (100 mg) or placebo gum, along with either accurate or inaccurate information regarding the gum's caffeine content. Participants were exposed to neutral and coffee-related stimuli using different sensory modalities (visual and combined auditory/olfactory). Craving, withdrawal, and heart rate were assessed at baseline and after each cue presentation. Following the cue-reactivity assessments, participants were provided with an opportunity to self-administer units of coffee. RESULTS: Caffeine expectancy was associated with reduced subjective withdrawal 30 min following the gum administration but was not significantly impacted by actual caffeine administration. The presentation of coffee-related cues was found to increase self-reported craving and heart rate, regardless of the expectation that caffeine had been administered. Visual, but not auditory/olfactory, cue reactivity appeared blunted when participants received a prior dose of caffeine. Prior caffeine ingestion also reduced the probability of subsequent coffee self-administration. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first examination of the impact of caffeine administration and expectancy on cue-elicited coffee craving and coffee consumption. Although there was some evidence that caffeine expectancy and administration were found to impact subjective withdrawal and self-administration respectively, neither was found to exert strong consistent effects on cue reactivity.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".