TY - JOUR
T1 - Response inhibition under alcohol
T2 - Effects of cognitive and motivational conflict
AU - Fillmore, Mark T.
AU - Vogel-Sprott, M.
PY - 2000/3
Y1 - 2000/3
N2 - Objective: This experiment tested the effect of cognitive and motivational conflict on response inhibition under alcohol. Method: Fifty-six male social drinkers were randomly assigned to one of eight groups (n = 8). Four pairs of groups received 0.62 g/kg of alcohol, or a placebo, and each pair performed a go/stop choice reaction time task under one of four conflict conditions. One condition (C) produced cognitive conflict by presenting 'go' and 'stop' signals in the task. Another condition (IR) added motivational conflict by administering an equal monetary reward for inhibiting responses to stop-signals, and for responding to go-signals. The remaining two conditions resolved the motivational conflict by administering the monetary reward only for inhibitions (I), or only for responses (R). Results: Compared with placebo, alcohol reduced inhibitions (i.e., impaired inhibitory control) under cognitive conflict (C; p = .041) and under motivational conflict (IR; p = .012). No significant effect of alcohol on inhibitions was observed in conditions where conflict was resolved (i.e., I and R). Conclusions: The study shows that alcohol can reduce the ability to inhibit a response. However, impaired inhibitory control is not an inevitable outcome of the drug action, because it can be counteracted by the consequences of behavior in the situation.
AB - Objective: This experiment tested the effect of cognitive and motivational conflict on response inhibition under alcohol. Method: Fifty-six male social drinkers were randomly assigned to one of eight groups (n = 8). Four pairs of groups received 0.62 g/kg of alcohol, or a placebo, and each pair performed a go/stop choice reaction time task under one of four conflict conditions. One condition (C) produced cognitive conflict by presenting 'go' and 'stop' signals in the task. Another condition (IR) added motivational conflict by administering an equal monetary reward for inhibiting responses to stop-signals, and for responding to go-signals. The remaining two conditions resolved the motivational conflict by administering the monetary reward only for inhibitions (I), or only for responses (R). Results: Compared with placebo, alcohol reduced inhibitions (i.e., impaired inhibitory control) under cognitive conflict (C; p = .041) and under motivational conflict (IR; p = .012). No significant effect of alcohol on inhibitions was observed in conditions where conflict was resolved (i.e., I and R). Conclusions: The study shows that alcohol can reduce the ability to inhibit a response. However, impaired inhibitory control is not an inevitable outcome of the drug action, because it can be counteracted by the consequences of behavior in the situation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034023268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034023268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.239
DO - 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.239
M3 - Article
C2 - 10757134
AN - SCOPUS:0034023268
SN - 0096-882X
VL - 61
SP - 239
EP - 246
JO - Journal of Studies on Alcohol
JF - Journal of Studies on Alcohol
IS - 2
ER -