Dose-Related Effects of Alcohol on Cognitive Functioning

Abstract

We assessed the suitability of six applied tests of cognitive functioning to provide a single marker for dose-related alcohol intoxication. Numerous studies have demonstrated that alcohol has a deleterious effect on specific areas of cognitive processing but few have compared the effects of alcohol across a wide range of different cognitive processes. Adult participants (N = 56, 32 males, 24 females aged 18–45 years) were randomized to control or alcohol treatments within a mixed design experiment involving multiple-dosages at approximately one hour intervals (attained mean blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) of 0.00, 0.048, 0.082 and 0.10%), employing a battery of six psychometric tests; the Useful Field of View test (UFOV; processing speed together with directed attention); the Self-Ordered Pointing Task (SOPT; working memory); Inspection Time (IT; speed of processing independent from motor responding); the Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP; strategic optimization); the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART; vigilance, response inhibition and psychomotor function); and the Trail-Making Test (TMT; cognitive flexibility and psychomotor function). Results demonstrated that impairment is not uniform across different domains of cognitive processing and that both the size of the alcohol effect and the magnitude of effect change across different dose levels are quantitatively different for different cognitive processes. Only IT met the criteria for a marker for wide-spread application: reliable dose-related decline in a basic process as a function of rising BAC level and easy to use non-invasive task properties.

Development of the PEBL Traveling Salesman Problem Computerized Testbed

“…Experiment 1a and 1b showed that performance in the task is not impacted by mild-to-moderate physiological stress that impacted other tasks involving sustained attention. This result is somewhat consistent with the finding of Dry et al (2012), who showed TSP performance is only modestly (and not significantly) impacted by levels of alcohol consumption that impair a number of other cognitive tasks. This suggests that solutions to the TSP involve …”

The influence of groups and alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking

“…In this regard, effects of alcohol on risky behaviour are argued to be a result of pharmacologically-induced cognitive deficits (Dry, Burns, Nettelbeck, Farquharson, & White, 2012), leading to engagement in risky behaviours (Giancola, Josephs, Parrott, & Duke, 2010). To test this assertion, experimental researchers typically administer acute doses of alcohol to healthy, non-dependent participants and subsequently examine their risk-taking behaviour compared to those in non-alcohol consumption conditions.…”

“…In the main, theoretical perspectives posit that alcohol and risk-taking behaviour are driven by cognitive processes (Dry et al, 2012;Mocaiber et al, 2011). This body of work alludes to pharmacologically induced deficits in cognitive functioning leading to disinhibition (Leeman, Toll, Taylor, & Volpicelli, 2009) and increased attentional bias, or focal narrowing (Steele & Josephs, 1988;Steele & Josephs, 1990).…”

“…The effects of alcohol on risky behaviour are argued to be a consequence of pharmacologically-induced cognitive deficits in two domains relating to decision making: inhibition and attention (Dry et al, 2012;Steele & Josephs, 1988). Research suggests that deficits in these areas are associated with diminished cognitive and behavioural constraint, and a narrowing of attention, both of which impede full systematic evaluation of a given situation (Giancola et al, 2010).…”

Alcohol Doesn’t Always Compromise Cognitive Function: Exploring Moderate Doses in Young Adults

“…Using a variety of cognitive tasks, low-and moderatedose alcohol, relative to placebo, has produced deficient Field et al, 2010;Friedman et al, 2011), facilitated (Gilbertson et al, 2009;Sklar et al, 2012), and similar (Dry et al, 2012;Guillot et al, 2010;Milani & Curran, 2000) performance. Contradictory findings are also reported for identical tasks and similar alcohol concentrations (e.g., Dry et al, 2012, vs. Gilbertson et al, 2009.…”