Emotional information processing during alcohol hangover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Various studies have investigated the effects of alcohol hangover on cognitive functioning and mood. This research of independent assessments of mood and performance shows that both are negatively affected. The aim of this study was to examine their combined effect, employing the emotional Stroop test, to investigate alcohol hangover effects on emotional information processing.\nMethod: N=25 UK young adults participated in ta naturalistic study. On a hangover day and an alcohol-free control day, subjects completed a test battery consisting of the emotional Stroop test (social, physical, and no threat items), attentional blink test and Eriksen flanker task (selective attention), a choice serial reaction time test, and the psychomotor vigilance test (PVT). Reaction times and number of errors were variables of interest, and compared between the hangover day and control day.\nResults: On the emotional Stroop test, in the hangover condition responses to social threat, physical threat, and control items (no threat) were significantly slower than in the control condition. On the Eriksen flanker test and PVT significantly slower reaction times were found in the hangover condition. No effects on number of errors were observed, and the number of lapses in the PVT did not significantly differ between the hangover and control test day. On the choice serial reaction time test, no significant hangover effects were found.\nDiscussions and Conclusions: Emotional information processing was significantly impaired during alcohol hangover. The observed slower response times confirm the assumption that cognitive resources to perform tasks are suboptimal during the alcohol hangover.\nDisclosure of Interest Statement: This study was funded by Ulster University. Joris Verster has received grants/research support from the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Janssen, Nutricia, Red Bull, Sequential, and Takeda, and has acted as a consultant for Canadian Beverage Association, Centraal Bureau Drogisterijbedrijven, Clinilabs, Coleman Frost, Danone, Deenox, Eisai, Janssen, Jazz, More Labs, Purdue, Red Bull, Sanofi-Aventis, Sen-Jam Pharmaceutical, Sepracor, Takeda, Toast!, Transcept, Trimbos Institute, Vital Beverages, and ZBiotics. The other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".