Influence of caffeine on information processing stages in well rested and fatigued subjects
Abstract
The effects of caffeine on different information processing stages were examined by using choice reaction time tasks. Independent variables were stimulus degradation, stimulus-response compatibility, time-uncertainty, state of the subject, and caffeine treatment. The task variables were assumed to affect the following processing stages; encoding, response selection and motor preparation, respectively. A 200 mg dose at the beginning of the experiment and a maintenance dose of 50 mg caffeine or lactose half-way through the session were administered to well rested and fatigued subjects, double-blind and deceptively. Behavioural measurements, event-related potentials (ERPs) and mood questionnaires were used to assess caffeine effects. The data showed that caffeine shortened reaction time. This effect showed an interaction with stimulus degradation and time uncertainty. In addition, ERP results supported the view that caffeine increases cortical arousal and perceptual sensitivity. Stimulating effects of caffeine were mainly located at input and output stages of the information processing system. Central processes were unaffected by caffeine. Fatigued subjects showed larger improvements in performance after caffeine than well-rested subjects. The results also indicated that caffeine effects were not stimulating in all subjects: 6 out of 30 subjects did not show arousing effects of caffeine.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Caffeine has been shown to narrow attention and increase selectivity of information processing.
“whilst caffeine has been shown to narrow attention and thus increase selectivity of information processing [42,43]”
From Central and peripheral effects of sustained caffeine use: tolerance is incomplete (2002) · cites this paper as [43]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 133
- Authors
- Lorist, M. M., Snel, J., & Kok, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Psychopharmacology
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 411-421
- ISSN
- 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-2072
- OpenAlex
- W2026236822
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- caffeine, information processing stages, fatigue, choice reaction time, stimulus degradation, stimulus-response compatibility, temporal uncertainty, encoding, response selection, motor preparation, event-related potentials, cortical arousal, perceptual sensitivity
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Caffeine, Double-Blind Method, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Processes, Reaction Time, Saliva, Visual Perception
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review