RATIONALE: Research on the limits of information processing shows that when a dual task is performed in quick succession, performance on the second task is increasingly degraded as the temporal gap between task 1 and task 2 decreases. The carry-over effect on task 2 is assumed to occur because the central cognitive stage of processing must be completed before the processing of task 2 can begin. This creates a bottleneck when the tasks are performed in close succession, but with longer delays task 2 is no longer affected by task 1. OBJECTIVES: It was predicted that if alcohol disturbs (slows) the central stage of processing, shorter delays between task 1 and task 2 should reveal more intense disruption in the performance of task 2. METHODS:Two groups (n=16) of healthy male social drinkers performed a baseline test on a dual task. On each trial, task 1 was followed by task 2 at one of four delays (50, 200, 500, and 1100 ms). The groups then received either 0.65 g alcohol/kg or a placebo and performed the task again. RESULTS: The RT of the alcohol and placebo groups did not differ on the baseline test. In accord with the hypothesis, the alcohol group performed task 2 more slowly on the treatment test than did the placebo group at the three shortest delays (P<0.02). At the longest delay, the RT of the groups did not differ (P>0.15). CONCLUSIONS: This pattern of task 2 RTs indicates that a moderate dose of alcohol can significantly impair (slow) the central, cognitive stage of information processing.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Research on the limits of information processing shows that when a dual task is performed in quick succession, performance on the second task is increasingly degraded as the temporal gap between task 1 and task 2 decreases. The carry-over effect on task 2 is assumed to occur because the central cognitive stage of processing must be completed before the processing of task 2 can begin. This creates a bottleneck when the tasks are performed in close succession, but with longer delays task 2 is no longer affected by task 1. OBJECTIVES: It was predicted that if alcohol disturbs (slows) the central stage of processing, shorter delays between task 1 and task 2 should reveal more intense disruption in the performance of task 2. METHODS: Two groups (n=16) of healthy male social drinkers performed a baseline test on a dual task. On each trial, task 1 was followed by task 2 at one of four delays (50, 200, 500, and 1100 ms). The groups then received either 0.65 g alcohol/kg or a placebo and performed the task again. RESULTS: The RT of the alcohol and placebo groups did not differ on the baseline test. In accord with the hypothesis, the alcohol group performed task 2 more slowly on the treatment test than did the placebo group at the three shortest delays (P<0.02). At the longest delay, the RT of the groups did not differ (P>0.15). CONCLUSIONS: This pattern of task 2 RTs indicates that a moderate dose of alcohol can significantly impair (slow) the central, cognitive stage of information processing.
Authors: Remco W M Zoethout; Wilson L Delgado; Annelies E Ippel; Albert Dahan; Joop M A van Gerven Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.335