Table 2.

Acute effects of alcohol on executive functioning (N=35).

Study	N	Age (Years): M (SD)	Dose	Alcohol Did Affect	Task	Did Not Affect	Task
Updating	(n=13)
Boha et al., 2009 [53]	32	22(2.3)	0.2 g/kg or 0.4 g/kg	(1) WM RT^l (2) WM Correct Responses (+)^l	Arithmetic task in scanner
Fillmore et al., 2009 [58]	10 M 10 W	23.2 (3.1)	0.0, 0.45, 0.65 g/kg	WM^k	Number identification task
Casbon et al., 2003 [88]	32 undergrads	22.8 (2.3) in alcohol condition, 23 (2.3) in no-alcohol condition	Peak 0.06%	Perseveration^b	N-Back Task
Rose & Duka, 2008 (Study 2) [61]	32 social drinkers	21.7, SD not reported	0.6 g/kg			(1) Visuospatial WM (2) Reasoning	(1) Spatial Span Task (2) Baddeley’s Reasoning Task
Grattan-Miscio & Vogel-Sprott, 2005 [89]	53 M 20 W	Range: 19–25, M(SD) not reported	0.62 g/kg (M); 0.54 g/kg (W)	(1) Reaction time in STMC^b,ⁱ (2) Errors in STMC^b,^c (3) Scanning time in STMC ^b,^c	SMS
Schweizer et al., 2006 [90]	20 M undergrads	21.8 (2.2)	0.65 g/kg alcohol	(1) Long-term verbal memory^g (2) Short-term visual memory (3) Long-term visual memory^g (p=.08) (4) Visuospatial WM (5) Information Processing (6) Explicit memory	(1) Word Discrimination (2) Design Discrimination (3) Xs and Os^c (4) Symbol Matching (5) Symbol Matching without a key	(1) Short-term verbal memory (2) Immediate WM	(1) Word Discrimination (2) Three Letters
Saults et al., 2007 [62]	36 M 36 W	Range: 21–30, M(SD) not reported	0.72 g/kg (M); 0.65 g/kg (F)	(1) Auditory WM (sequential presentation) (2) Visuospatial WM (sequential presentation)	(1) Sound presentation (2) Dot presentation	(1) Auditory WM (simultaneous presentation) (2) Visuospatial WM (simultaneous presentation)	(1) Sound presentation (2) Dot presentation
Paulus et al., 2006 [59]	6 M 4 W	23.2 (0.9)	0.75 mL/kg (M); 0.68 mL/kg (F)			Visuospatial WM	fMRI task (2,4,6 colored dots)
Pihl et al., 2003 [60]	41 social drinkers	20.85 (1.82) in alcohol condition, 20.2 (1.79) in placebo condition	Test at 0.08%	Acquired Association^c	Acquired Spatial Association Task	(1) Non-spatial association (2) Visuospatial WM	(1) Acquired Non-Spatial Association Task (2) Random Object Span Task (like SOPT)
Tiplady et al., 2009 [91]	30	22.8, no SD reported in everyday condition, 23.1, no SD reported in lab condition	M: 0.8 g/kg F: 0.7 g/kg	STMC	(1) Memory Scanning Task (2) Number Pairs
Weissenborn & Duka, 2003 [92]	95 social drinkers	21.8 (SEM=0.3)	0.8 g/kg F:Mean=0.61 g/l M:Mean=0.56 g/l			Visuospatial WM	Self-Ordered Pointing Task
Finn et al., 1999 [10]	69 M 80 W	FHP: 23.1 (2.9) FHN: 22.2 (1.8)	0.07% or 0.09%	Auditory WM^a	Digit Span Backward (WAIS-R)
Cromer et al., 2010 [93]	20 social drinkers	22.8 (1.1)	0.10%	Visuospatial WM	Groton Maze Learning Test
Shifting	(n=9)
Montgomery et al., 2011 [94]	40 social drinkers	20.15, no SD reported in alcohol condition; 19.4, no SD in placebo condition	0.4 g/kg	Planning	Jansari-Agnew-Akesson-Murphy (JAAM) task
Lyvers & Maltzman, 1991 [95]	45 M 45 W	Range: 21–30, M(SD) not reported	0.05%	Perseveration Set-shifting	WCST
Christiansen, Rose, Cole, & Field, 2012 [96]	80 undergrads	22.08 (4.53)	0.65 g/kg alcohol	Word generation	COWAT
Birak, et al., 2010 [97]	45 undergrads	20.5 (3.0)	0.65 g/kg (M); 0.57 g/kg (F)	Set-Shifting^f	Shape Size Choice Task
Weissenborn & Duka, 2003 [92]	95 social drinkers	21.8 (SEM=0.3)	0.8 g/kg F:Mean=0.61 g/l M:Mean=0.56 g/l	Planning	Tower of London
Guillot et al., 2010 [54]	94 M 91 W	25.6 (6.5)	.00%, .05%, .075%, or .10%	Perseveration^d Set-Shifting (+)^e	WCST TMT-B
Domingues et al., 2009 [56]	96 tested with alcohol	Not reported	.01% - “over .06%”			Conceptualization, Mental Flexibility, Sensitivity to Interference, Environmental Autonomy	Frontal Assessment Battery
Day et al., 2014 [55]	91	Men: 19.4 (0.78) Women: 19.3 (0.77)	0% – 0.29%	Set-Shifting	TMT-B, TMT Composite (B-A)	Attention	TMT-A
Lyvers & Tobias-Webb, 2010 [98]	86 bar patrons	22.1 (3.2)	0% – 0.15%	Perseveration	WCST PE	NPE	WCST
Inhibition	(n=20)
Tsujii et al., 2011 [99]	32	28.2 (5.05)	0.5 g/kg	Response Inhibition (RT and False Alarms)	Visual GNG in scanner
Fillmore et al., 2009 [58]	10 M 10 W	23.2 (3.1)	0.0, 0.45, 0.65 g/kg	Response inhibition^o	Cued GNG
Marczinski et al., 2005 [63]	12 M 12 W	23.4 (2.4)	0.0, 0.45, 0.65 g/kg	(1) Commission Errors^j (1) Reaction time^j,^k	(1) Eng. GNG (2) Diseng. GNG	Commission Errors	Disengagement GNG
Marczinski & Fillmore, 2005 [100]	9 M 8 W	23.5 (2.7)	0.0, 0.45, 0.65 g/kg	(1) Response inhibition (RT and Failures to Inhibit on No-Go)	Cued GNG
Marinkovic et al., 2012 [101]	10 M 10 W	24.9 (3.6)	Test between .04–.05%	(2) Reaction times (3) Accuracy on incongruent trials (p=.07)	Stroop task in fMRI
Rose & Duka, 2008 (Study 1) [61]	32 social drinkers	21.3, no SD reported	0.6 g/kg	Inhibition of interference	Stroop Task
Schweizer et al., 2006 [90]	20 M undergrads	21.8 (2.2)	0.65 g/kg alcohol	Response inhibition	Stroop GNG
Abroms et al., 2003 [102]	29 M 11 W	22.6 (1.6)	0.65 g/kg	Response inhibition	Cued GNG	Response alteration	Cued task: choice of two “go” options
Weafer et al., 2009 [57]	10 ADHD 12 Control	Control: 22.8 (1.1); ADHD: 22.8 (1.8)	0.65 g/kg	Response inhibition, particularly for ADHD	Cued GNG
Weafer & Fillmore, 2008 [103]	14 M 12 W	21.9 (1.4)	0.65 g/kg	Response inhibition	Cued GNG
Fillmore et al., 2005 [104]	12 M 8 W	21.5 (1.0)	0.65 g/kg	(1) RT to Response inhibitionⁱ (2) Response inhibition^m	Cued GNG
Fillmore et al., 2008 [105]	7 M 7 W	23.5 (3.2)	0.65 g/kg	Response inhibition^h	Cued GNG
Fillmore & Weafer, 2012 [106]	20 M 20 W	23.1 (2.9)	0.65 g/kg	Response inhibitionⁿ	Cued GNG
Ostling & Fillmore, 2010 [107]	32 adults	22.9 (2.4)	0.65 g/kg	(1) Response activation (2) Response inhibition	Cued GNG
Birak, et al., 2010 [97]	45 undergrads	20.5 (3.0)	0.65 g/kg (M); 0.57 g/kg (F)	(1) Response Inhibition (+) (2) Latency in RT (+)	Affective GNG
Domingues et al., 2009 [56]	96 tested with alcohol	Not reported	.01% - “over .06%”			Inhibitory Control	Frontal Assessment Battery
Tiplady et al., 2009 [91]	30	22.8, no SD reported in everyday condition, 23.1, no SD reported in lab condition	M: 0.8 g/kg F: 0.7 g/kg	Response Inhibition (RT & False Positives)	Visual GNG	Response Inhibition (False Negatives)	Visual GNG
Loeber & Duka, 2009 [108]	16 M 16 W	Alcohol: 21.3 (3.6) Placebo: 20.5 (3.4)	0.8 g/kg	Stop Signal RT	Stop Signal Task
Finn et al., 1999 [10]	69 M 80 W	FHP: 23.1 (2.9) FHN: 22.2 (1.8)	0.07% or 0.09%	(1) Response Inhibition (2) Approach (+)	(1) GNG False Alarm (2) GNG Hit Rates
Guillot et al., 2010 [54]	94 M 91 W	25.6 (6.5)	.00%, .05%, .075%, or .10%			Response Inhibition	GoStop Task

Note: (+)=participants did better rather than worse; in N column: M=men, W=women;

only for those high in WM;

under high WM load;

only on descending limb;

High dose performed more poorly on WCST PE and TE, Med dose performed more poorly on PE;

placebo & low dose performed better than at BL;

only in unfamiliar alcohol drink condition;

after 20 minute delay;

under conflict;

ⁱ

on ascending limb;

following invalid go cues;

only at 0.65 g/kg;

only for low dose (0.2 g/kg);

to no-go cues;

ⁿ

for both at-risk and no-risk drinkers;

among high sensation-seekers;

WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Task; WM = Working Memory; CANTAB = Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Batteries; PM = Prospective Memory; JAAM = Jansari-Agnew-Akesson-Murphy Task; SOPT = Self-Ordered Pointing Task; COWAT = Controlled Oral Word Association Test; GNG = Go/No-Go; SMS = Sternberg Memory Scanning Task.