BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic rise in the consumption of alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmEDs) in social drinkers. It has been suggested that AmED beverages might lead individuals to drink greater quantities of alcohol. This experiment was designed to investigate whether the consumption of AmEDs would alter alcohol priming (i.e., increasing ratings of wanting another drink) compared with alcohol alone. METHODS: Participants (n = 80) of equal gender attended 1 session where they were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 doses (0.91 ml/kg vodka, 1.82 ml/kg energy drink, 0.91 ml/kg vodka mixed with 1.82 ml/kg energy drink [AmED], or a placebo beverage). Alcohol-induced priming of the motivation to drink was assessed by self-reported ratings on the Desire for Drug questionnaire. RESULTS: The priming dose of alcohol increased the subjective ratings of "desire" for more alcohol, consistent with previous research that small doses of alcohol can increase the motivation to drink. Furthermore, higher desire ratings over time were observed with AmEDs compared with alcohol alone. Finally, ratings of liking the drink were similar for the alcohol and AmED conditions. CONCLUSIONS: An energy drink may elicit increased alcohol priming. This study provides laboratory evidence that AmED beverages may lead to greater motivation to drink versus the same amount of alcohol consumed alone.

Impulsivity may have different facets that contribute to drinking patterns in young people. This research examined how aspects of impulse control, especially the ability to inhibit a response, predicted recent alcohol use patterns in young social drinkers. Participants (N=109) between the ages of 18 and 21 performed a cued go/no-go task that required quick responses to go targets and the inhibition of responses to no-go targets. Participants also completed several questionnaires that assessed drinking habits (TLFB) and self-reported impulsivity (BIS-11). Regression analyses revealed that both the impulsivity questionnaire scores and the inhibitory failures observed on the behavioral task predicted various aspects of recent drinking. However, only the inhibitory failures from the behavioral task, and not the impulsivity questionnaire scores, predicted the highest number of drinks consumed on one occasion during the past month. These findings are consistent with the notion that impulsivity may have different components that may be contributing the drinking patterns, and this research suggests that the inability to withhold a response is a strong predictor of the binge use of alcohol.

College students are highly susceptible to the H1N1 virus, yet previous studies suggest that college students perceive themselves at low risk for the flu. We surveyed 514 undergraduates to assess their perceptions of H1N1 flu risk and opinions about flu vaccines. A third of respondents stated that they were not at risk of getting the H1N1 flu because they were young. Responses indicated a distrust of the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccinations; only 15.8% of participants planned on receiving H1N1 vaccination. Top reasons for refusing the H1N1 vaccine included questioning vaccine safety and effectiveness, and concerns about potential serious and/or benign side effects. Top reasons for H1N1 vaccination acceptance included receiving a doctor recommendation for the vaccine, having previously gotten a seasonal vaccine, and being at high-risk for influenza. Our findings suggest that college students are inaccurate in assessing their risk level and are unlikely to seek vaccinations.

BACKGROUND There has been a dramatic rise in the consumption of alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED) in young people. AmED have been implicated in risky drinking practices and greater accidents and injuries have been associated with their consumption. Despite the increased popularity of these beverages (e.g., Red Bull and vodka), there is little laboratory research examining how the effects of AmED differ from alcohol alone. This experiment was designed to investigate if the consumption of AmED alters neurocognitive and subjective measures of intoxication compared with the consumption of alcohol alone. METHODS Participants (n=56) attended 1 session where they were randomly assigned to receive one of 4 doses (0.65 g/kg alcohol, 3.57 ml/kg energy drink, AmED, or a placebo beverage). Performance on a cued go/no-go task was used to measure the response of inhibitory and activational mechanisms of behavioral control following dose administration. Subjective ratings of stimulation, sedation, impairment, and level of intoxication were recorded. RESULTS Alcohol alone impaired both inhibitory and activational mechanisms of behavioral control, as evidenced by increased inhibitory failures and increased response times compared to baseline performance. Coadministration of the energy drink with alcohol counteracted some of the alcohol-induced impairment of response activation, but not response inhibition. For subjective effects, alcohol increased ratings of stimulation, feeling the drink, liking the drink, impairment, and level of intoxication, and alcohol decreased the rating of ability to drive. Coadministration of the energy drink with alcohol increased self-reported stimulation, but resulted in similar ratings of the other subjective effects as when alcohol was administered alone. CONCLUSIONS An energy drink appears to alter some of the objective and subjective impairing effects of alcohol, but not others. Thus, AmED may contribute to a high-risk scenario for the drinker. The mix of impaired behavioral inhibition and enhanced stimulation is a combination that may make AmED consumption riskier than alcohol consumption alone.

High rates of binge drinking and alcohol-related problems, including drinking and driving, occur among college students. Underlying reasons for the heightened impaired driving rates in this demographic group are not known. The authors hypothesized that acute tolerance to the interoceptive cues of intoxication may contribute to these maladaptive decisions to drive in binge drinkers. Groups of binge-drinking and non-binge-drinking college students (N = 28) attended sessions during which they received a moderate dose of alcohol (0.65 g/kg) or a placebo. The development of acute tolerance to subjective ratings of intoxication and simulated driving performance was assessed by comparing measures taken during the ascending phase and descending phases of the blood alcohol curve. Compared with placebo, alcohol increased ratings of intoxication and impaired multiple aspects of simulated driving performance in both binge and non-binge drinkers. During the descending phase of the blood alcohol curve, binge drinkers showed acute tolerance to alcohol's effect on subjective intoxication, and this effect was accompanied by an increased rating of willingness to drive. By contrast, non-binge drinkers showed no acute tolerance.

BACKGROUND Binge drinking (heavy episodic alcohol use) is associated with high rates of impaired driving and myriad alcohol-related accidents. However, the underlying reasons for the heightened accident risk in this demographic group are not known. This research examined acute alcohol effects on simulated driving performance and subjective ratings of intoxication and driving ability in binge and nonbinge drinkers. METHODS Young social drinking college students (24 binge drinkers and 16 nonbinge drinkers) participated in this study. Participants attended a session during which they received a moderate dose of alcohol (0.65 g/kg) and a session during which they received a placebo. A simulated driving task measured participants' driving performance in response to each dose. Subjective responses to each dose were also assessed, including ratings of sedation, stimulation, and driving ability. RESULTS The acute dose of alcohol impaired multiple aspects of driving performance in both binge and nonbinge drinkers. Under alcohol, all participants had greater difficulty in maintaining their lane position, maintaining the appropriate speed and made multiple driving errors compared to placebo performance. By contrast, compared with nonbinge drinkers, binge drinkers reported feeling less sedated by the alcohol and reported having a greater ability to drive following the acute dose of alcohol. CONCLUSIONS Reduced subjective intoxication and perceived driving impairment in binge drinkers may account for the greater accident risk in this demographic group. Binge drinkers may lack the internal sedation cue that helps them accurately assess that they are not able to effectively drive a vehicle after drinking.

Previous research has demonstrated that adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are more likely to experience driving-related problems, which suggests that they may exhibit poorer driving performance. However, direct experimental evidence of this hypothesis is limited. The current study involved 2 experiments that evaluated driving performance in adults with ADHD in terms of the types of driving decrements typically associated with alcohol intoxication. Experiment 1 compared the simulated driving performance of 15 adults with ADHD to 23 adult control participants, who performed the task both while sober and intoxicated. Results showed that sober adults with ADHD exhibited decrements in driving performance compared to sober controls, and that the profile of impairment for the sober ADHD group did in fact resemble that of intoxicated drivers at the blood alcohol concentration level for legally impaired driving in the United States. Driving impairment of the intoxicated individuals was characterized by greater deviation of lane position, faster and more abrupt steering maneuvers, and increased speed variability. Experiment 2 was a dose-challenge study in which 8 adults with ADHD and 8 controls performed the driving simulation task under 3 doses of alcohol: 0.65g/kg, 0.45g/kg, and 0.0g/kg (placebo). Results showed that driving performance in both groups was impaired in response to alcohol, and that individuals with ADHD exhibited generally poorer driving performance than did controls across all dose conditions. Together the findings provide compelling evidence to suggest that the cognitive and behavioral deficits associated with ADHD might impair driving performance in such a manner as to resemble that of an alcohol intoxicated driver. Moreover, alcohol might impair the performance of drivers with ADHD in an additive fashion that could considerably compromise their driving skill even at blood alcohol concentrations below the legal limit.

Reports an error in "Driver training conditions affect sensitivity to the impairing effects of alcohol on a simulated driving test to the impairing effects of alcohol on a simulated driving test" by Emily L. R. Harrison, Cecile A. Marczinski and Mark T. Fillmore (Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2007[Dec], Vol 15[6], 588-598). The correct title of the article should read "Driver training conditions affect sensitivity to the impairing effects of alcohol on a simulated driving test".(The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2007-18976-010.) Research shows that prior behavioral training in a challenging environment reduces alcohol-induced impairment on simple psychomotor tasks. However, no studies have examined if this relationship generalizes to driving performance. The present study examined simulated driving performance and tested the hypothesis that a challenging training history would protect against the impairing effects of alcohol on driving performance. The challenging training history involved driving in a visually-impoverished environment. Thirty adults were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Two groups were tested under alcohol (0.65 g/kg) after prior experience performing the task under either a visually-impoverished environment or a normal visual environment. The remaining group served as a control and was trained and tested under the visually-impoverished condition environment. Results showed that individuals trained in the impoverished environment displayed sober levels of performance when their performance was subsequently tested under alcohol. By contrast, volunteers trained in a normal environment showed impairment under alcohol. The findings suggest that differences in driving training history can affect a driver's sensitivity to the impairing effects of alcohol.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved).

Research shows that prior behavioral training in a challenging environment reduces alcohol-induced impairment on simple psychomotor tasks. However, no studies have examined if this relationship generalizes to driving performance. The present study examined simulated driving performance and tested the hypothesis that a challenging training history would protect against the impairing effects of alcohol on driving performance. The challenging training history involved driving in a visually-impoverished environment. Thirty adults were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Two groups were tested under alcohol (0.65 g/kg) after prior experience performing the task under either a visually-impoverished environment or a normal visual environment. The remaining group served as a control and was trained and tested under the visually-impoverished condition environment. Results showed that individuals trained in the impoverished environment displayed sober levels of performance when their performance was subsequently tested under alcohol. By contrast, volunteers trained in a normal environment showed impairment under alcohol. The findings suggest that differences in driving training history can affect a driver's sensitivity to the impairing effects of alcohol.

Heavy episodic alcohol use, or binge drinking, is a serious public health problem. Binge drinking is endemic in college students and has resulted in numerous alcohol-related tragedies, including acute alcohol poisonings, falls, and automobile collisions. Such negative outcomes might occur because binge drinkers are generally more impulsive, and this impulsivity might be exacerbated under alcohol. The purpose of this study was to examine this hypothesis by comparing the acute effects of alcohol on a cognitive measure of behavioral control in binge and nonbinge drinkers. The results indicated that binge drinkers act more impulsively and report feeling more stimulated under an acute 0.65 g/kg dose of alcohol compared to nonbinge drinkers. The present finding of a heightened disinhibitory reaction to alcohol in binge drinkers may help explain the link between impulsivity and problem drinking at a more fundamental level of behavioral control.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption can prime motivation to continue drinking and may contribute to excessive drinking. Most alcohol administration research assesses the effect of a single alcohol dose on outcome measures; however, this differs from typical drinking occasions in which several drinks are consumed over time. This research tracks priming measures (alcohol urge, latency to first sip, and consumption time) and subjective effects (intoxication, stimulation, and sedation) across consumption of 5 drinks, over a period of 2.5 hours. Alcohol, placebo, and no-alcohol (i.e., soft drink) conditions are compared with isolate the effects of alcohol expectancies and differentiate these from alcohol's pharmacological effects. METHODS: Alcohol urge and subjective state were measured before and after an initial drink was consumed (preload: alcohol, placebo, or no-alcohol). Four additional drinking phases followed whereby participants had access to 2 drinks (alcohol/no-alcohol, or placebo/no-alcohol). Experimental priming (urge, latency to first sip, consumption time) and subjective effect (intoxication, stimulation, and sedation) outcomes were recorded after each drink. RESULTS: The pattern of alcohol urge following placebo drinks differed compared with alcohol and no-alcohol consumption, Fs(1, 90) > 4.10, ps < 0.003. There was a linear decrease in urge in the no-alcohol condition, while in the alcohol condition urge increased after the first few drinks before decreasing. Urge ratings showed the opposite pattern in the placebo condition (a decrease followed by an increase). Alcohol produced the highest ratings of lightheadedness, F(5, 440) = 2.8, p < 0.02, but both alcohol and placebo produced increased sedated feelings, Fs ≥ 19.05, ps ≤ 0.001. After placebo, urge was positively related to liking and enjoying the "alcoholic" drinks and feeling more stimulated (rs ≥ 0.31, ps ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In social drinkers, different factors may affect priming during different stages of a drinking episode. For example, the pharmacological effects of alcohol appear involved in priming during the initial stages of drinking. When alcohol expectancies are activated, blocking access to alcohol can increase urge, supporting Tiffany's cognitive processing model of craving.

BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic rise in the consumption of alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmEDs) in social drinkers. It has been suggested that AmED beverages might lead individuals to drink greater quantities of alcohol. This experiment was designed to investigate whether the consumption of AmEDs would alter alcohol priming (i.e., increasing ratings of wanting another drink) compared with alcohol alone. METHODS: Participants (n = 80) of equal gender attended 1 session where they were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 doses (0.91 ml/kg vodka, 1.82 ml/kg energy drink, 0.91 ml/kg vodka mixed with 1.82 ml/kg energy drink [AmED], or a placebo beverage). Alcohol-induced priming of the motivation to drink was assessed by self-reported ratings on the Desire for Drug questionnaire. RESULTS: The priming dose of alcohol increased the subjective ratings of "desire" for more alcohol, consistent with previous research that small doses of alcohol can increase the motivation to drink. Furthermore, higher desire ratings over time were observed with AmEDs compared with alcohol alone. Finally, ratings of liking the drink were similar for the alcohol and AmED conditions. CONCLUSIONS: An energy drink may elicit increased alcohol priming. This study provides laboratory evidence that AmED beverages may lead to greater motivation to drink versus the same amount of alcohol consumed alone.

RATIONALE This study investigated the coadministration of an energy drink with alcohol to study the effects on subjective intoxication and objective performance. OBJECTIVES This study aims to evaluate the objective and subjective effects of alcohol versus placebo at two alcohol doses, alone and in combination with an energy drink, in a balanced order, placebo-controlled, double-blind design. METHODS Two groups of ten healthy volunteers, mean (SD) age of 24 (6.5), participated in the study. One group consumed energy drink containing 80 mg of caffeine and the other consumed a placebo drink, with both receiving two alcohol doses (0.046 and 0.087% breathalyser alcohol concentration). Tests included breath alcohol assessment, objective measures of performance (reaction time, word memory and Stroop task) and subjective visual analogue mood scales. RESULTS Participants showed significantly impaired reaction time and memory after alcohol compared to the no alcohol condition and had poorer memory after the higher alcohol dose. Stroop performance was improved with the energy drink plus alcohol combination compared to the placebo drink plus alcohol combination. Participants felt significant subjective dose-related impairment after alcohol compared to no alcohol. Neither breath alcohol concentration nor the subjective measures showed a significant difference between the energy drink and the placebo energy drink when combined with alcohol. CONCLUSIONS Subjective effects reflected awareness of alcohol intoxication and sensitivity to increasing alcohol dose. There were no overall significant group differences for subjective measures between energy drink and placebo groups in the presence of alcohol and no evidence that the energy drink masked the subjective effects of alcohol at either dose.

Background:  Varenicline (VAR) is a partial nicotinic receptor agonist that is an effective smoking cessation medication. Preliminary evidence indicates that it may also reduce alcohol consumption, but the underlying mechanism is not clear. For example, VAR may reduce alcohol consumption by attenuating its subjectively rewarding properties or by enhancing its aversive effects. In this study, we examined the effects of an acute dose of VAR upon subjective, physiological, and objective responses to low and moderate doses of alcohol in healthy social drinkers. Methods:  Healthy men and women (N = 15) participated in 6 randomized sessions; 3 sessions each with 2 mg VAR and placebo (PL) followed 3 hours later by a beverage containing PL, low-dose alcohol (0.4 g/kg), or high-dose alcohol (0.8 g/kg). Subjective mood and drug effects (i.e., stimulation, drug liking), physiological measures (heart rate, blood pressure), and eye tracking tasks were administered at various intervals before and after drug and alcohol administration. Results:  VAR acutely increased blood pressure, heart rate, ratings of dysphoria and nausea, and also improved eye tracking performance. After alcohol drinking (vs. PL), VAR increased dysphoria and tended to reduce alcohol liking ratings. It also attenuated alcohol-induced eye-tracking impairments. These effects were independent of the drug's effects on nausea before drinking. Conclusions:  Our data support the theory that VAR may reduce drinking by potentiating aversive effects of alcohol. VAR also offsets alcohol-induced eye movement impairment. The evidence suggests that VAR may decrease alcohol consumption by producing effects, which oppose the rewarding efficacy of alcohol.

RATIONALE Caffeinated alcoholic beverages have been associated with increased risk of alcohol-related harms. However, few studies have examined these combined effects on behavioural control, which is believed to underlie many of the negative effects of alcohol consumption. In addition, studies have often omitted subjective measures, and none have directly assessed the role of caffeine consumer history. OBJECTIVES To examine the combined effects of alcohol and caffeine on measures of behavioural control and perceived intoxication in abstinent, light caffeine consumers. METHODS Participants (n = 28; 50% male) attended four sessions at which they consumed one of the following beverages in a randomised order: placebo, alcohol alone (0.6 g/kg), caffeine alone (2.0 mg/kg), and alcohol/caffeine. They completed measures of mood, intoxication, anxiety and alcohol craving before and after a task battery comprising measures of behavioural control and reaction time performance. RESULTS Caffeine attenuated alcohol-related performance deficits on stop-signal accuracy, had no effect on go-no-go performance deficits, and worsened accuracy on the Stroop task. Caffeine did not influence absolute changes in perceived intoxication but there was suggestion that caffeine may have changed the nature of intoxication with increases in stimulation. CONCLUSIONS Caffeine appears to have mixed effects on alcohol intoxication that are task-dependent. We found increased stimulation in the alcohol/caffeine condition, supporting the contention that caffeinated alcoholic beverages enable an individual to drink for longer. Future research should model real world drinking behaviour by examining how these effects change across multiple drink administrations.

RATIONALE In party circuits dexamphetamine is frequently used in combination with alcohol. It is hypothesized that co-administration of dexamphetamine to alcohol might reduce the sedative effects of alcohol, but may potentiate risk-taking behaviour. OBJECTIVES The study was aimed at assessing the effects of alcohol, dexamphetamine and the combination of both on simulated driving and cognitive performance. METHOD Eighteen subjects participated in a randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled study employing four conditions: 10 mg dexamphetamine, 0.8 g/kg alcohol, 10 mg dexamphetamine + 0.8 g/kg alcohol, and placebo. Fundamental driving skills and risk-taking behaviour were assessed in a driving simulator. Subjects also completed vigilance and divided attention tasks, and subjective ratings. RESULTS Mean BAC levels during simulated driving were between 0.91‰ and 0.64‰. Subjects using alcohol showed a significantly larger mean standard deviation of lateral position and shorter accepted gap time and distance. Use of alcohol or dexamphetamine + alcohol was associated with a higher frequency of red light running and collisions than the dexamphetamine or placebo conditions. Performance of vigilance and divided attention tasks was significantly impaired in the alcohol condition and, to a lesser degree, in the dexamphetamine + alcohol condition. CONCLUSION Single doses of 0.8 g/kg alcohol increased risk-taking behaviours and impaired tracking, attention and reaction time during a 3-h period after drinking when BACs declined from 0.9 to 0.2 mg/ml. The stimulatory effects of co-administration of dexamphetamine 10 mg were not sufficient to overcome the impairing effects of alcohol on skills related to driving.

Studies of the impairing effects of alcohol on behavior often show greater tolerance in heavy drinkers compared with light drinkers, suggesting a causal link between heavy consumption and tolerance. Tolerance also develops during the time course of a single drinking episode, and this "acute tolerance" might play an important role in the escalation to heavy drinking. The present study examined the development of acute tolerance to the impairing effects of alcohol on motor coordination and inhibitory control in a group of at-risk binge drinkers (n = 20) and a group of nonrisk moderate drinkers (n = 20). Participants performed the testing battery in response to placebo and a moderate dose of alcohol (0.65 g/kg) twice at comparable blood alcohol concentrations (BACs): once on the ascending limb and once on the descending limb of the blood alcohol curve. Results showed marked acute tolerance to the impairing effects of alcohol on motor coordination in the at-risk drinkers. By contrast, no recovery of motor skill was observed in the nonrisk drinkers. Regarding inhibitory control, both groups remained impaired on both the ascending and descending limbs, indicating no acute tolerance in either group. The findings suggest that at-risk binge drinkers display a faster recovery in their ability to execute versus inhibit action under alcohol. Such an "activational bias" of behavior could account for their continued alcohol consumption and impulsive behaviors while intoxicated, especially as BAC begins to decline.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).

RATIONALE Alcohol effects on behavioral and cognitive mechanisms influence impaired driving performance and decisions to drive after drinking (Barry 1973; Moskowitz and Robinson 1987). To date, research has focused on the ascending limb of the blood alcohol curve, and there is little understanding of how acute tolerance to impairment of these mechanisms might influence driving behavior on the descending limb. OBJECTIVES To provide an integrated examination of the degree to which alcohol impairment of motor coordination and inhibitory control contributes to driving impairment and decisions to drive on the ascending and descending limbs of the blood alcohol curve. METHODS Social-drinking adults (N = 20) performed a testing battery that measured simulated driving performance and willingness to drive, as well as mechanisms related to driving: motor coordination (grooved pegboard), inhibitory control (cued go/no-go task), and subjective intoxication. Performance was tested in response to placebo and a moderate dose of alcohol (0.65 g/kg) twice at comparable blood alcohol concentrations: once on the ascending limb and again on the descending limb. RESULTS Impaired motor coordination and subjective intoxication showed acute tolerance, whereas driving performance and inhibitory control showed no recovery from impairment. Greater motor impairment was associated with poorer driving performance under alcohol, and poorer inhibitory control was associated with more willingness to drive. CONCLUSIONS Findings suggest that acute tolerance to impairment of motor coordination is insufficient to promote recovery of driving performance and that the persistence of alcohol-induced disinhibition might contribute to risky decisions to drive on the descending limb.

Binge drinking in college students is widespread and known to cause significant harms and health hazards for the drinker. One factor that may be exacerbating hazardous drinking in young people is the new popular trend of consuming alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED). However, rates of AmED use and motivations for AmED consumption in college students have not been well established. In this study, 706 undergraduate college students from a university in the United States participated in a web-based survey that queried self-reported alcohol, energy drink, and AmED use. In addition, motivations for using AmEDs were assessed. The results indicated that for all participants, 81% reported that they have tried at least one energy drink in the past and 36% reported consumption of at least one energy drink in the past 2 weeks. Alcohol consumption patterns were similar to findings from U.S. national surveys of college drinking, as 37% of respondents were classified as binge drinkers and 23% abstained from drinking. In the whole sample (including the alcohol abstainers), 44% reported trying AmED at least once and 9% reported AmED consumption at least once in the past 2 weeks. 78% of respondents agreed with the statement that AmEDs appeal to underage drinkers. When AmED users were asked about various motivations for consuming AmEDs, users reported that they consumed these beverages to get drunk and reduce sedation compared to alcohol alone. In conclusion, the consumption of AmEDs is common in U.S. college students. Motivations for using AmEDs include the reduction of the sedative effects of alcohol, an important interoceptive cue that one should stop drinking.

RATIONALE Even in elementary cognitive tasks, alcohol consumption results in both cognitive and motor impairments (e.g., Schweizer and Vogel-Sprott, Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 16: 240-250, 2008). OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to quantify the latent psychological processes that underlie the alcohol-induced decrement in observed performance. METHODS In a double-blind experiment, we administered three different amounts of alcohol to participants on different days: a placebo dose (0 g/l), a moderate dose (0.5 g/l), and a high dose (1 g/l). Following this, participants performed a "moving dots" perceptual discrimination task. We analyzed the data using the drift diffusion model. Model parameters drift rate, boundary separation, and non-decision time allow a decomposition of the alcohol effect in terms of their respective cognitive components, that is, rate of information processing, response caution, and non-decision processes (e.g., stimulus encoding, motor processes). RESULTS We found that alcohol intoxication causes higher mean RTs and lower response accuracies. The diffusion model decomposition showed that alcohol intoxication caused a decrease in drift rate and an increase in non-decision time. CONCLUSIONS In a simple perceptual discrimination task, even a moderate dose of alcohol decreased the rate of information processing and negatively affected the non-decision component. However, alcohol consumption left response caution largely intact.