English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Rationale  Inhibition is a core executive function and refers to the ability to deliberately suppress attention, behavior, thoughts, and/or emotions and instead act in a specific manner. While acute alcohol exposure has been shown to impair response inhibition in the stop-signal and Go/NoGo tasks, reported alcohol effects on attentional inhibition in the Stroop task are inconsistent. Notably, studies have operationalized attentional inhibition variably and there has been intra- and inter-individual variability in alcohol exposure.    Objective  This study aimed to examine the acute effects of alcohol on attentional inhibition, considering previous limitations.    Methods  In a single-blind, cross-over design, 40 non-dependent participants with a medium-to-high risk drinking behavior performed a Counting Stroop task (CST) under a baseline and an arterial blood alcohol concentration (aBAC) clamp at 80 mg%. Attentional inhibition was assessed as the alteration of reaction times (RT), error rates (ER), and inverse efficiency scores (IES) between incongruent and congruent trials (interference score). Stroop performance was also assessed regardless of trial-type.    Results  Compared to saline, acute alcohol exposure via an aBAC clamp did not affect CST interference scores but increased RTs and IES in both incongruent and congruent trials.    Conclusions  Attentional inhibition (Stroop interference score) was not impaired by clamped moderate alcohol exposure. Acute alcohol impaired Stroop performance evidenced by a general increase in response times. Our findings suggest that response and attentional inhibition do not share the same neurocognitive mechanisms and are affected differently by alcohol. Results could also be explained by automated behaviors known to be relatively unaffected by acute alcohol.    Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00213-021-05792-0.

Acute alcohol does not impair attentional inhibition as measured with Stroop interference scores but impairs Stroop performance