Younger, drunk, and fast: Paradoxical rapid reaction time in hazardous drinkers.
Cognitive function
executive function; alcohol
hazardous alcohol use
vibrotactile perception
Journal
Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1461-7285
Titre abrégé: J Psychopharmacol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8907828
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
medline:
26
6
2023
pubmed:
24
5
2023
entrez:
24
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Research consistently links hazardous alcohol use with reduced cognitive function but is less consistent with regard to processing speed, which underpins many cognitive functions. Using vibrotactile perception to assess cognitive function may have benefits over other sensory stimuli, as this method gives lower variability in reaction time (RT) and shorter latency. This study aimed to assess performance on vibrotactile simple and choice RT tasks between hazardous and non-hazardous drinkers. Participants ( Hazardous drinkers exhibited significantly faster choice RT. With regard to subjective executive function, Strategic Planning and Impulse Control were significantly better in non-hazardous drinkers. Finally, Organisation and Impulse Control both significantly positively correlated with choice and simple RT, indicating that as subjective function improved, RT increased (a decline in performance). These results are considered in the context of the premature ageing hypothesis, impulsivity and the impact of alcohol use on various neurotransmitter systems. Furthermore, the poorer subjective function in young hazardous drinkers indicates a possible metacognitive deficit, increased effort or issues with vibrotactile perception as a cognitive function assessment in this group.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Research consistently links hazardous alcohol use with reduced cognitive function but is less consistent with regard to processing speed, which underpins many cognitive functions. Using vibrotactile perception to assess cognitive function may have benefits over other sensory stimuli, as this method gives lower variability in reaction time (RT) and shorter latency.
AIMS
This study aimed to assess performance on vibrotactile simple and choice RT tasks between hazardous and non-hazardous drinkers.
METHODS
Participants (
RESULTS
Hazardous drinkers exhibited significantly faster choice RT. With regard to subjective executive function, Strategic Planning and Impulse Control were significantly better in non-hazardous drinkers. Finally, Organisation and Impulse Control both significantly positively correlated with choice and simple RT, indicating that as subjective function improved, RT increased (a decline in performance).
CONCLUSIONS
These results are considered in the context of the premature ageing hypothesis, impulsivity and the impact of alcohol use on various neurotransmitter systems. Furthermore, the poorer subjective function in young hazardous drinkers indicates a possible metacognitive deficit, increased effort or issues with vibrotactile perception as a cognitive function assessment in this group.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37222097
doi: 10.1177/02698811231177216
pmc: PMC10291389
doi:
Substances chimiques
Ethanol
3K9958V90M
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
590-600Références
Dev Sci. 2013 Mar;16(2):269-286
pubmed: 23432836
Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Dec 11;7(12):1279
pubmed: 29225356
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2015 Sep;76(5):738-48
pubmed: 26402354
Brain Sci. 2021 Aug 30;11(9):
pubmed: 34573174
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 Jul 1;103(1-2):25-9
pubmed: 19395203
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2004 Jul;78(3):611-9
pubmed: 15251270
Br J Psychol. 1993 Aug;84 ( Pt 3):301-17
pubmed: 8401986
Addiction. 1993 Jun;88(6):791-804
pubmed: 8329970
Front Hum Neurosci. 2020 Oct 01;14:509091
pubmed: 33132870
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008 Oct;32(8):1507-18
pubmed: 18588911
Front Psychol. 2017 Sep 22;8:1650
pubmed: 29018380
Imaging Med. 2013 Oct 1;5(5):427-440
pubmed: 24795779
J Public Health (Oxf). 2018 Jun 1;40(2):304-311
pubmed: 29325150
Child Dev. 2010 Nov-Dec;81(6):1641-60
pubmed: 21077853
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010 Oct;18(5):409-17
pubmed: 20939644
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 31;17(1):e0262670
pubmed: 35100278
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 21;107(38):16483-8
pubmed: 20813959
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 18;11(11):e0166834
pubmed: 27861563
Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Oct;15(10):453-9
pubmed: 21889391
Chronobiologia. 1993 Jul-Dec;20(3-4):145-61
pubmed: 8131664
Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 14;11(1):1382
pubmed: 33446798
Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 May;123(5):892-901
pubmed: 22055841
J Psychopharmacol. 2021 Nov;35(11):1375-1385
pubmed: 34278885
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2005 Mar;29(3):317-25
pubmed: 15770105
Psychol Aging. 1996 Jun;11(2):316-23
pubmed: 8795060
J Cogn Neurosci. 2014 Nov;26(11):2490-502
pubmed: 24742191
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2019 Jan 24;35(1):31-45
pubmed: 30668621
Hum Psychopharmacol. 2012 Mar;27(2):187-99
pubmed: 22389083
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2015 Jun;133:65-82
pubmed: 25842258
Addiction. 2005 Sep;100(9):1280-90
pubmed: 16128717
Mil Med. 2016 May;181(5 Suppl):45-50
pubmed: 27168552
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014 Sep;20(8):784-95
pubmed: 25241623
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2017 Aug;41(8):1432-1443
pubmed: 28618018
Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 04;8:1638
pubmed: 29046650
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018 Jul;90:332-349
pubmed: 29678643
J Neurosci Methods. 2012 Mar 15;204(2):215-20
pubmed: 22155443
Neuropsychol Rev. 2019 Sep;29(3):357-385
pubmed: 31512192
Age (Dordr). 2014 Feb;36(1):243-9
pubmed: 23649646
Cereb Cortex. 2008 Oct;18(10):2341-51
pubmed: 18245039
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820
Brain Res. 2013 Jan 25;1492:53-62
pubmed: 23178333
Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jul 10;160(13):1977-89
pubmed: 10888972
Arch Neurol. 1993 Aug;50(8):873-80
pubmed: 8352676
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014 Feb;20(2):218-29
pubmed: 24512674
Alcohol Alcohol. 2000 Mar-Apr;35(2):197-201
pubmed: 10787397
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2016 Jan;22(1):38-46
pubmed: 26638808
Addict Behav. 2014 Jan;39(1):345-9
pubmed: 24459697
Nat Neurosci. 2012 Sep;15(9):1184-91
pubmed: 22929913
Neuropsychologia. 2007 Mar 2;45(4):617-29
pubmed: 16962146
Alcohol Res. 2020 Oct 29;40(2):01
pubmed: 33133878
J Psychopharmacol. 2016 Jul;30(7):654-61
pubmed: 27166364
Addict Biol. 2013 Mar;18(2):203-13
pubmed: 22264351
Eur Addict Res. 2003 Oct;9(4):157-64
pubmed: 12970584
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022 Jun;137:104637
pubmed: 35339481
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019 Jan;44(1):86-96
pubmed: 30143781
Lancet. 2018 Sep 22;392(10152):1015-1035
pubmed: 30146330
Alcohol Res Health. 2003;27(2):125-33
pubmed: 15303622
Yale J Biol Med. 2019 Mar 25;92(1):81-92
pubmed: 30923475
Biol Psychol. 2000 Oct;54(1-3):1-34
pubmed: 11035218
Hum Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul;36(4):e2782
pubmed: 33682954
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2016 Nov;40(11):2435-2444
pubmed: 27658235
Aging Ment Health. 2013;17(1):12-23
pubmed: 22934837
Alcohol. 2018 Aug;70:51-60
pubmed: 29778070
Neuroimage. 2021 Feb 1;226:117561
pubmed: 33189927
Addiction. 2006 Dec;101(12):1696-704
pubmed: 17156168
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022 Jun;137:104646
pubmed: 35367223
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2009 Sep;93(3):354-62
pubmed: 19497334
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2018 Aug;72(8):685-694
pubmed: 29691286
Front Aging Neurosci. 2011 Dec 08;3:18
pubmed: 22163221
Front Psychol. 2018 Apr 23;9:582
pubmed: 29740370
Neuropharmacology. 2013 Jul;70:12-8
pubmed: 23321688
Int J Neurosci. 2005 May;115(5):649-67
pubmed: 15823930
Psychol Bull. 1989 Jul;106(1):128-47
pubmed: 2667007
Neuroimage. 2002 Nov;17(3):1429-36
pubmed: 12414282
J Psychopharmacol. 2013 Jan;27(1):84-92
pubmed: 22764182