Evaluation of the Effect of Caffeine Consumption on Cognitive Functions by Electroencephalography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate cognitive performance and neurophysiological changes after caffeine consumption in individuals who regularly consume different amounts of caffeine. <strong>Materials and Methods: </strong>Thirty-seven people aged 18-25 were divided into two groups according to their caffeine consumption as less than 3 mg/kg/day (low consumption group; LC) and more than 3 mg/kg/ day (high-consumption group; HC). Electroencephalography (EEG) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA) were performed in both groups (baseline records). One week later, caffeinated (Caff) and decaffeinated (Decaff) coffee were randomly given to LC and HC. Thus, four groups were formed (LC+Caff, LC+Decaff, HC+Caff and HC+Decaff). EEG was repeated one hour after coffee, and MoCA was performed within 20 minutes. <strong>Results: </strong>In baseline eyes-opened EEG, the power of beta2 and delta were higher in the LC group than in the HC. After coffee consumption in the eyes-opened EEG, alpha1 and alpha2 power were significantly reduced in the HC+Caff. Following coffee consumption, the MoCA score increased significantly in the HC+Decaff and LC+Caff groups compared with the baseline. <strong>Conclusion:</strong> Our study showed that low caffeine consumers had increased brain activity and cognitive performance post consumption high amounts of caffeine. However, this effect was less in high caffeine consumers. Therefore, caffeine habituation may alter the brain’s response to caffeine.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".