Table 1.
Summary of the behavioral studies exploring executive functions in binge drinking.
| Participants | Tasks | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flexibility | |||
| Hartley et al. (2004) | Young adults (N = 27; mean age: 21.1 yo) NIAAA criteria Binge drinking score |
Intra/Extradimensional Set Shift Task evaluates shifting and attentional flexibility | No group difference |
| Scaife & Duka (2009) | Young adults (N = 60; mean age: 20.6 yo) Binge drinking score |
Intra/Extradimensional Set Shift Task | Female binge drinkers presented poor performance |
| Salas-Gomez et al. (2016) | Young adults (N = 206; mean age: 19.5 yo) NIAAA criteria |
Trail Making Test (A, B) Part B evaluates attentional flexibility |
Binge drinkers showed poorer performance |
| Bø et al. (2017) | Young adults (N = 103; mean age: 21.7 yo) Binge drinking score (continuous approach) |
Intra/Extradimensional Set Shift Task | Shifting did not predict the binge drinking score 18 months later |
| Gil-Hernandez et al. (2017) | Adolescents and young adults (N = 322) categorized according to age (1: 13–15 yo, 2: 16–18 yo, 3: 19–22 yo) NIAAA criteria |
Trail Making Test (A, B) Verbal fluency assessing flexibility |
Binge drinkers (19–22 yo) presented poorer performance than matched controls in the Trail Making Test |
| Carbia et al. (2018a) | Adults after 11 years of alcohol consumption (N = 63; age: 29 yo) AUDIT-C score |
Trail Making Test, B Verbal fluency |
No group difference |
| Inhibition | |||
| Townshend & Duka (2005) | Young adults (N = 100, mean age: 20.9 yo) Binge drinking score |
Digit Vigilance Test measures response inhibition during sustained attention | Female binge drinkers showed poorer performance (more commission errors) than female controls |
| Fernie et al. (2010) | Young adults (N = 75; mean age: 19.3 yo) Total weekly consumption, AUDIT, binge drinking score (continuous approach) |
Go/No-Go Task measuring the ability to inhibit an inappropriate response Stop Signal Task measuring the ability to inhibit an already initiated response |
Inhibition performance did not predict alcohol use and problems |
| Goudriaan et al. (2011) | Young adults (N = 200; mean age: 20.4 yo) Consumption of more than 5 drinks at least two times in the past month |
Go Stop Task is a combination of Go/No-Go and Stop Signal tasks evaluating prepotent response inhibition | Inhibition performance was not related to alcohol consumption two years later |
| Sanhueza et al. (2011) | Young people (mean age: 18.9 yo) and elderly adults (mean age: 69.4 yo) [N = 91] For binge drinking, consumption of more than 6 (female) or 8 (male) drinks in two hours |
Stroop color-word Task evaluating the ability to avoid an automatic response | Binge drinkers performed worse than controls of similar age. Their performance was comparable to elderly participants in the word reading condition but not in the word naming one. |
| Moreno et al. (2012) | Young adults (N = 68; mean age: 20 yo) CAGE score, more than 6 drinks in the last drinking episode |
Go/No-Go Task Stop Task |
No group difference |
| Henges & Marczinski (2012) | Young adults (N = 109; mean age: 19.6 yo) NIAAA criteria (continuous approach) |
Go/No-Go Task | Poor inhibition performance predicted the total consumption in the month, the number of binge drinking episodes, and the highest number of drinks consumed. |
| Sanchez-Roige et al. (2014) | Young adults (N = 44; mean age: 21.2 yo) Binge drinking score |
Stop Signal Task | No group difference |
| Czapla et al. (2015) | Young adults (N = 32; mean age: 23.8 yo) Binge drinking score |
Go/No-Go Task with alcohol-related stimuli | Binge drinkers presented poorer performance in the alcohol condition |
| Poulton et al. (2016) | Adults (N = 84; mean age: 22.8 yo) Consumption of at least 6 drinks (with more than 2 drinks per hour) at least two times a month |
Monetary Incentive Control Task assessing prepotent response inhibition with reward contingency | Binge drinkers presented poorer performance |
| Salas-Gomez et al. (2016) | Young adults (N = 206; mean age: 19.5 yo) NIAAA criteria |
Stroop color-word Task | No group difference |
| Bø et al. (2016a) | Young adults (N = 121; mean age: 21.7 yo) Binge drinking score (continuous approach) |
Stop Signal Task | Binge drinking score did not predict poor inhibition but faster reaction time and less adjustment following commission errors |
| Lannoy et al. (2018a) | Young adults (N = 44; mean age: 20.9 yo) Consumption of at least 6 drinks (minimum 2 drinks per hour) at least two times a week Binge drinking score |
Speeded (time limit to process Go stimuli) Go/No-Go Task with alcohol-related stimuli | Binge drinkers presented poorer adjustment following commission errors in the alcohol condition |
| Planning | |||
| Hartley et al. (2004) | Young adults (N = 27; mean age: 21.1 yo) NIAAA criteria Binge drinking score |
Stockings of Cambridge test evaluating planning abilities | Binge drinkers were slower than controls |
| Sanhueza et al. (2011) | Young people (mean age: 18.9 yo) and elderly adults (mean age: 69.4 yo) [N = 91] For binge drinking, consumption of more than 6 (female) or 8 (male) drinks in two hours |
Tower of Hanoi assessing planning abilities | No group difference involving binge drinking |
| Parada et al. (2012) | Young adults (N = 122; mean age: 18.8 yo) Consumption of at least 6 drinks (minimum 3 drinks/hour) once a month |
Zoo Map and Key Search tests measuring planning abilities | No group difference |
| Mota et al. (2013) | Young adults (N = 89; mean age: 18.7 yo) Consumption of at least 6 drinks (minimum 3 drinks/hour) once a month |
Zoo Map and Key Search tests | No group difference at the longitudinal level (after two years of binge drinking) |
| Decision-making | |||
| Goudriaan et al. (2007) | Young adults (N = 200; mean age: 19.9 yo) Consumption of more than 5 drinks at least two times in the past month |
Iowa Gambling Task assessing decision making under ambiguity and under risk | At the longitudinal level, the stable high binge drinkers group (according to the frequency) made less advantageous choices in decision making |
| Xiao et al. (2009) | Adolescents (N = 181; mean age: 16.2 yo) NIAAA criteria |
Iowa Gambling Task | Binge drinkers had poorer decision making abilities, and advantageous decision making predicted less drinking problems one year later |
| Goudriaan et al. (2011) | Young adults (N = 200; mean age: 20.4 yo) Consumption of more than 5 drinks at least two times in the past month |
Iowa Gambling Task | Poorer decision making was associated with higher binge drinking two years later |
| Bø et al. (2016) | Young adults (N = 121; mean age: 21.7 yo) Binge drinking score (continuous approach) |
Iowa Gambling Task | Binge drinking score was related to poorer performance in the first trials of decision making |
| Moreno et al. (2012) | Young adults (N = 68; mean age: 20 yo) CAGE score, more than 6 drinks in the last drinking episode |
Iowa Gambling Task Two-Choice Task evaluating decision making |
Binge drinkers had poorer decision-making performance |
Note: The three first processes (flexibility, inhibition, planning) refer to executive functions subcomponents. NIAAA criteria correspond to at least one binge drinking episode per month. Binge drinking score is computed based on the following formula: [(4*consumption speed) + drunkenness frequency + (0.2 * drunkenness percentage)]. AUDIT-C consists of the sum of the three first items of the AUDIT questionnaire assessing alcohol consumption frequency, intensity, and the frequency of binge drinking episodes (more than 6 drinks). CAGE questionnaire evaluates problem drinking by four self-reported items. yo = years old. One drink corresponds to one alcohol unit.