Cited by 133Coffee research and impactsSleep and Work-Related FatigueHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Influence of caffeine on information processing stages in well rested and fatigued subjects

Lorist, Monicque M., Snel, Jan, Kok, Albert·1994·Psychopharmacology

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

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02245217

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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