Caffeine Use and Attentional Engagement in Everyday Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The amount of caffeine consumed in a typical day (estimated in milligrams) was not related to attention-related errors, attention lapses, mind-wandering, or deep effortless concentration (i.e., flow) in everyday life. • Those who are more likely to ingest caffeine to potentially enhance their cognition, or to experience the reinforcing effects of caffeine, or to help relieve negative affect showed higher levels of inattention in everyday life. • One possible explanation for these findings may be related to the demographics of the current study • Another explanation is that those who have attentional difficulties may consume caffeine in an attempt to ameliorate these problems, with these attempts being unsuccessful. Caffeine is a common component of various beverages and foods with approximately 80% of the world's population consuming caffeinated products daily. Here we examined how caffeine consumption and different motivations for consuming caffeine (e.g., cognitive enhancement, negative affect relief, reinforcing effects, and weight control) relate to self-reported inattention, mind-wandering, and deep, effortless concentration (i.e., flow) in everyday life in a university student population via two online surveys ( N = 224 and N = 234). Our results indicated that, contrary to what one might expect, the amount of caffeine consumed in a typical day (estimated in milligrams) was not related to attention-related experiences in everyday life. However, we found that those who are more likely to ingest caffeine to potentially enhance their cognition, or to experience the reinforcing effects of caffeine, or to help relieve negative affect showed higher levels of inattention in everyday life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".