Cited by 247Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Acute-alcohol effects on the Experiential Discounting Task (EDT) and a question-based measure of delay discounting

Reynolds, Brady, Richards, Jerry B., de Wit, Harriet·2006·Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

Abstract

Alcohol is widely believed to increase impulsive behavior. However, this has been difficult to demonstrate for impulsive choice using existing measures of delay discounting. We hypothesized a new real-time discounting task would be more sensitive to acute effects of alcohol. Measures included were a (a) question-based measure of delay discounting, the (b) Experiential Discounting Task (EDT), the (c) Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), the (d) Stop Task, and the (e) Go/No-Go Task. A three-session, double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subjects design was used. Placebo, 0.4, or 0.8 g/kg alcohol doses were administered in a counterbalanced order over the three testing sessions. Twenty four (13 females) healthy social drinkers between the ages of 21 and 35 participated. Alcohol increased impulsive responding only on the EDT and the Stop Task. On the EDT, participants performed more impulsively after the 0.8 g/kg dose compared to placebo, whereas on the Stop Task, both the 0.4 and 0.8 g/kg doses increased impulsive responding. Alcohol had no significant effects on the other measures. The EDT was more sensitive to the acute effects of alcohol than previously used discounting tasks. Procedural differences between the EDT and question-based measures are discussed in the context of these divergent findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.01.007

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reynolds, B., Richards, J. B., & de Wit, H.
Affiliations
  • Abigail Wexner Research Institute (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Venue
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-02
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
194-202
ISSN
0091-3057 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065092312
Cited by
247
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 16
FWCI
3.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
acute alcohol effects, delay discounting, impulsivity, impulsive responding, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, stop-signal task, go/no-go task, social drinkers
MeSH terms
Adult, Ethanol, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Humans, Male, Task Performance and Analysis

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