Table 2.
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 RTl (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 | WMk | 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% | Perseverationb | 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 STMCb,i (2) Errors in STMCb,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 memoryg (2) Short-term visual memory (3) Long-term visual memoryg (p=.08) (4) Visuospatial WM (5) Information Processing (6) Explicit memory |
(1) Word Discrimination (2) Design Discrimination (3) Xs and Osc (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 Associationc | 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 WMa | 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-Shiftingf | 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% | Perseverationd 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 inhibitiono | 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 Errorsj (1) Reaction timej,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 inhibitionm |
Cued GNG | ||
Fillmore et al., 2008 [105] | 7 M 7 W |
23.5 (3.2) | 0.65 g/kg | Response inhibitionh | 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;
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;
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.