A review of the scientific literature regarding the effects of alcohol on driving-related skills was conducted. One hundred and twelve articles - from 1981 to 1997 - were reviewed. Results were indexed by BAC and behavioral area and entered into a database. Two separate analyses were conducted. The first analysis determined the lowest BAC at which impairment is reliably present in driving-related skills. The second analysis determined the thresholds of impairment for each of twelve separate behavioral areas. It was concluded that:
|3.1 Overall Impairment|
|3.2 Impairment, by Behavioral Areas|
|Driving and Flying: On the Road and Simulators
Choice Reaction Time
Simple Reaction Time
Critical Flicker Fusion
|4. Discussion and Conclusions|
|4.1 Major Findings
4.2 Methodological Issues
4.3 Future Research
Reference List A [Articles used as reference]
Reference List B [Articles included in the review]
Appendix A [Tests results by behavioral area]
Appendix B [Data comparison between Moskowitz and Robinson (1988) and Moskowitz and Fiorentino (1999)]
Historically, deterrence has been the principal approach for prevention of driving under the influence of alcohol. Legislatures have established blood alcohol concentration (BAC(1)) limits for driving and law enforcement agencies have enforced those laws. Scientists have contributed to the establishment of BAC limits with data from experimental and epidemiological studies to identify the alcohol levels which produce driving skills impairment and increased crash rates.
In the scientific literature, impairment refers to a statistically significant decrease in performance under alcohol treatment from the performance level exhibited under placebo treatment. To reach statistical significance, performance differences in subjects under the two treatments must be reliable and substantial in magnitude.
In a report published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Moskowitz and Robinson (1988) reviewed the experimental literature from the 1950's through 1985 on alcohol effects on driving related skills performance. The report summarized 177 studies which met the following criteria for inclusion: Placebo treatments, statistical significance, and the ability to determine the BAC at the time of testing. Overall, 21% of the studies reported performance impairment by 0.04 g/dl, 34% by 0.05 g/dl, 66% by 0.08 g/dl and nearly all by 0.10 g/dl. The skills performance measures were organized into 10 response categories. The BAC at which impairment was first measured and the percent of studies reporting impairment at the various BACs differed by response area. Divided attention, visual functions, and tracking were impaired in the 0.01-0.02 g/dl range, with the number of studies reporting impairment increasing rapidly with increasing BACs. On the other hand, the impairment of simple reaction time and psychomotor measures began at higher BACs. Simple reaction time in particular was found to be an insensitive and unreliable measure.
Moskowitz and Robinson criticized studies which examined performance at one BAC only since a report of impairment at a single BAC sheds no light on the question of whether lower BACs might also be impairing. They concluded that the data identified no threshold BAC below which impairment does not occur. They also concluded that the scientific evidence supported a reduction of the BAC limit for driving to 0.05 g/dl. Finally, to facilitate the classification of examined behaviors, they urged investigators to include fuller descriptions of methods and procedures in reporting future research over a wider range of BACs.
Subsequently Kruger, et al., (1990) in Germany, performed a literature review capturing the European non-English language literature (English summary in Kruger, 1993). The Kruger, et al., review encompassed studies of alcohol effects on subjective reactions such as mood, and social relations, as well as on skills performance. The studies were organized into categories including: subjective reactions, social behaviors, psycho-physical functions, automatic behaviors, controlled behaviors, and driving. The terms automatic and controlled are taken from cognitive psychology theory. Automatic behaviors refer to over-learned tasks which require little conscious mental activity (easy tracking, simple and choice reaction time, mental arithmetic, concentrated attention, etc.). Controlled behaviors involve a greater mental workload (difficult tracking, divided attention tasks, information processing, etc.). Studies of controlled behaviors report impairment beginning at 0.03 g/dl. Impairment appears at somewhat higher BACs for automatic behaviors. The authors concluded that social and controlled behaviors are impaired at 0.030-0.049 g/dl in actual traffic whereas automatic behaviors are not impaired before 0.05 g/dl.
Holloway (1994, 1995) used Kruger's schema in a review for the period 1985 - 1993. In agreement with Kruger, he found that subjective effects and controlled behaviors are affected by alcohol at lower BACs than psycho-physical or automatic behaviors. He reported that 70 to 80% of studies examining controlled behavior and subjective intoxication reported impairment by BACs at or below 0.04 g/dl.
Determining whether a behavior is automatic or controlled, however, can be difficult. Shinar, et al., (1998), for example, demonstrated that the frequent description of gear shifting in a manual transmission vehicle, as an "automatic" process was erroneous. Subjects showed decreased detection of roadside signs during manual shifting in comparison with automatic transmission cars. This is not to argue the potential value of the cognitive psychology model of driving behavior, but as Ranney's (1994) review of driving behavior models noted, accurate assignment of driving activities as controlled or automatic awaits further research. Moskowitz and Robinson (1988) noted the difficulty of assigning studies to behavioral areas given that reports of experimental methods and procedures often are quite limited. As an example, driving simulator studies vary greatly in the types of roads traversed, the degree of interacting traffic, the length of travel, and mental workload. Such variability, which is obvious in simulators, also exists in other measured behaviors. To expand the boundaries of response categories into theoretical groupings without empirical studies validating that placement would only inflate the problem. A fully satisfactory resolution awaits a better taxonomy of behavior which, coupled with better specification and execution of experimental studies, will permit organization of diverse studies into theoretical formats.
This review examines the 1981 to 1998 literature on driving related behavior primarily under low BACs. The behavioral response categories have been organized in a form slightly different from that used by Moskowitz and Robinson (1988). Two caveats apply to the 13 categories of driving-related behaviors in the categorization scheme used in this review. First, note that assignment of tasks to the behavioral categories is arbitrary to some degree and, in some cases, is different from the investigator's categorization. For example, results from an experiment which reported that subjects were required to perform two tracking tasks simultaneously appear under divided attention rather than under tracking. Second, even within each of the 13 behavioral categories, there is great variability in experimental tasks and corresponding demands on the subjects. An attempt to incorporate the studies into larger categories of a theoretical schema would serve to increase within-category variability and would result in a blurring of distinctions between categories.
1. Alcohol in blood is measured in terms of weight per volume. In the US, BACs are typically reported in grams of absolute alcohol per deciliter of whole blood (0.08 g/dl). The symbol "%" is frequently used to denote g/dl. Note, however, that the "%" symbol is not a true percentage since it is describing a measure of weight in a measure of volume.
In this paper, g/dl is the measure utilized. Th values remain the same if the symbol "%" is substituted to g/dl. Other countries frequently use mg/dl (e.g., 80 mg/dl) or g/l (e.g., 0.8 g/l) as their units of measure.
Using various search engines, a wide computer search of the literature reporting the effects of alcohol on driving skills was conducted. Abstracts were obtained for 1733 titles produced by the computer search. Based on the content of these abstracts, 358 articles were identified for retrieval and further review. Seventy-three of selected publications were not available.
The 285 published articles retrieved were evaluated to determine whether they met the following, pre-determined inclusion criteria:
The evaluation determined that 112 studies met the review's inclusion criteria. These 112 articles were reviewed and indexed by driving behavior and BAC, and the pertinent data from each article were entered into a computer data base. Table 1 provides a short description of the behavioral tasks included in the 112 studies by the 13 behavioral domain areas which categorized those studies. It lists the number of articles in each behavioral domain and the number of BAC levels tested across those studies within the domain.
|Domain||Tasks||Number of Articles||Number of BAC Levels|
|Aftereffects||Testing measured residual alcohol effects on a drinker's performance following a drinking session and the drinker's return to zero BAC. Various tasks from all other domains were used.||12||25|
|Cognitive Tasks||Digit-symbol substitution, mathematical and verbal reasoning, memory, pattern recognition, visual backward masking, card sorting.||31||145|
|Critical Flicker Fusion||Determination of the lowest frequency at which a flickering on-off light appears to be constant.||7||18|
|Divided Attention||Simultaneous performance of two or more tasks such as tracking, visual search, number monitoring, and detection of auditory stimuli.||18||52|
|Driving Skills||Actual driving, simulated driving, simulated flight, motorcycle simulator.||25||50|
|Perception||Detection of visual and/or auditory stimuli, time estimation, traffic hazard perception, anticipation time.||12||35|
|Psychomotor tasks||Finger tapping, body balance, hand steadiness, drill press operation, assembly of electronic parts.||18||57|
|Reaction time - Choice||Choice reaction time, choice reaction time with auditory distraction.||15||37|
|Reaction time - Simple||Single known stimulus with a single response.||5||20|
|Tracking||Pursuit tracking, compensatory tracking, critical tracking.||11||23|
|Visual Functions||Contrast sensitivity, depth perception, smooth pursuit, saccadic peak velocity, saccadic latency, saccadic inaccuracy, nystagmus, etc.||19||63|
|Drowsiness||Multiple sleep latency test, repeated test of sustained wakefulness.||6||13|
|Note: Many articles covered more than one behavioral area|
The following sections present the results of two approaches in reviewing the literature. The first approach presents the data for impairment across all behavioral areas, counting the number of studies with each study counted once at the lowest BAC for which impairment was found. Most studies, however, reported on more than a single measure and, in fact, several reported findings for multiple driving skills across different behavioral areas (i.e., vigilance and divided attention and psychomotor skills). In addition, several studies reported tests of performance in different behavioral areas and at different BACs. The second analysis, which focused on specific behavioral areas, examined reports of more numerous behavioral tests across BACs.
3.1. Overall Impairment
The following analysis is based on 109 of 112 reviewed studies. Three studies were not included. The following is a brief discussion on the rationale for the exclusions.
Willumeit, et al., (1984) described their apparatus as a driving simulator, but it is better described as a tracking device. Subjects moved a light signal in a horizontal plane to coincide with the appearance of a light stimulus. The light signal appeared in one of 50 possible blocks along a horizontal scale. Each appearance of the step signal was preceded by one of two arrows to indicate the direction of stimulus appearance. The study treatments were alcohol, two benzodiazepines, and a beta-blocker. The three drugs and a placebo were administered with and without alcohol for eight treatments total. At 0.05 g/dl BAC, there was no difference between alcohol and placebo treatments. Ten mg diazepam also failed to impair in comparison to placebo. Since this analysis focused on the BAC threshold for impairment, studies in which impairment was not found at any BAC were excluded, whether the result was due to instrument insensitivity, flawed methodology or other cause.
A study by McMillen, et al. (1989), which is described as a study of risk taking in a driving simulator, also was dropped from the analysis. The simulator was a video driving game (Sego, Model 100), and dependent measures were number of lane changes, cars passed, and time at maximum speed during a 4.5 minute drive. A mean BAC of 0.07 g/dl had no effect on any response measure. These results are at variance with studies which report alcohol effects on risk taking (Cohen, et al.,1958; Light and Keiper,1969; Fromme,1997). Similar research has reported that alcohol affects speed selection. Since McMillen, et al. (1989) reported no alcohol effects at the tested BACs, this study was not included in the analysis on the assumption that the measures obtained with the video driving game were insensitive to alcohol.
Finally, one other study was not included, although it did report a response measure sensitive to the effects of alcohol. Yesavage and Leirer (1986) examined the aftereffects of alcohol ingestion. Although other studies of aftereffects include data obtained before subjects' BACs dropped to zero, this one did not. Since it only measured performance at zero BAC, the results do not pertain to the issue of BACs at which alcohol impairment first appears.
Figure 1, based on 109 studies, shows the number of studies reporting impairment by the lowest BAC at which impairment appeared. Note that the BAC categories used here are slightly different than those in the Moskowitz and Robinson study. Here each BAC category ends with a 9 (e.g., 0.020-0.029 g/dl) whereas Moskowitz and Robinson used BAC categories ending in zero(e.g., 0.021-0.030 g/dl). Twenty-seven percent of the studies reported impairment by 0.039 g/dl, 47% by 0.049 g/dl and 92% by 0.079 g/dl. The impairment appeared in one or more of the response variables examined in the study. As shown in Tables B1 and B2 in Appendix B, impairment was reported by more studies and for lower BAC than in the 1988 review by Moskowitz and Robinson. The difference may be accounted for in two ways. First, pre-1988 studies included very few which examined more than one BAC. If impairment is reported only for a single selected BAC, no inference can be drawn about alcohol effects at lower BACs. In this review of more recent literature, the majority of studies have examined multiple BACs, which permits the identification of lower BAC at which impairment appears. Second, the methods and instruments used by researchers in this past decade have improved.
Figure 1. Number of studies reporting impairment (109), by the lowest BAC at which was found.
The following analysis is based on all 112 reviewed studies.Figure 2 summarizes the number of test results by BAC for all the tasks examined.Note that these are not the number of studies, but the total number of tasks across experimental conditions for all studies. In some cases, impairment was reported at BACs as low as 0.009 g/dl. By the time subjects reach BACs of 0.030 g/dl, the number of impaired behavioral areas is greater than the number not impaired. As BACs increase, the number of areas showing impairment also increase. Clearly, the measurement of impairment at very low BACs requires highly sensitive measures. Also, as will be seen later, some behavioral areas are far more sensitive to the effects of alcohol than others. Even within a given area, there was considerable variation in the BAC at which impairment was first reported. As previously noted, it is relevant that experimental procedures vary greatly since procedures affect the sensitivity of response measures. The following are comments on the results within each behavioral areas.
Twenty-five studies produced a total of 50 behavioral tests. Impairment was reported for BACs below 0.01 g/dl. As shown in Figure 3, nearly all driving and flying simulator studies or on-the-road studies of driving reported impairment by alcohol. The lowest BAC at which impairment was found (0.001 g/dl) was reported by Morrow et al. (1990) who, using a flying simulator, required subjects to integrate information about aircraft, traffic, and weather conditions; maneuver the aircraft along a dynamic flight path; and maintain radio communications.
McMillen et al. (1989) reported the highest BAC at which impairment was not found (0.070 g/dl). The methodological and instrumental problems in that study were discussed in the preceding section.
In the decade since the Moskowitz and Robinson report was published, the sensitivity, reliability and face validity of driving and flying simulators have improved. Driving simulators now present scenarios which better reflect the mental workload of actual driving, which may account for their increased sensitivity to alcohol. Note that subjects in the Morrow et al. study, which reported impairment at 0.001 g/dl, were required to perform multiple tasks simultaneously in a divided attention paradigm.
3.2.2. Divided Attention (Figure 3, Table 2 in Appendix A)
Eighteen studies of divided attention yielded 52 behavioral tests. In general, experimental tasks aimed at measuring the ability to divide attention are sensitive to alcohol effects, beginning at BACs of 0.005-0.010 g/dl. Divided attention tests require subjects to perform two tasks concurrently, and most use a central tracking task and a peripheral visual search task. This approach is appropriate since it models the divided attention characteristics of driving; tracking can be considered analogous to maintaining lane position and visual search corresponds to monitoring the environment. Roehrs et al.(1994) used this configuration and measured impairment at BACs as low as 0.005 g/dl.
A few divided attention tasks use apparatus which requires subjects to simultaneously monitor number displays in central and peripheral vision. This approach appears less sensitive than the combined tracking-visual search task, possibly due to the similarity of the two number tasks and the lack of a continuous component (such as tracking).
3.2.3. Drowsiness (Figure 3, Table 3 in Appendix A)
Although wakefulness is not a measure of skills performance, it is an essential requirement for safe driving. Sleep, or more accurately drowsy driving due to sleep loss or deprivation, has been identified as a contributing variable to crashes, and its potential interaction with alcohol is of import because most alcohol-related crashes occur at night, when drivers are more likely to need sleep.
Six studies of the effects of alcohol on drowsiness produced 13 behavioral test reports of which 11 showed impairment. The findings were obtained with two tests, the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) and the repeated test of sustained wakefulness (RTSW). The MSLT is a highly standardized measure of physiological sleep tendency. Subjects are connected to polysomnographic equipment, and are given the opportunity to fall asleep at regular intervals. Sleep latency is a measure of elapsed time from when the subjects are told to fall asleep to the occurrence of the first epoch of any sleep stage. The RTSW also measures physiological sleep tendency, but in this test subjects are instructed to resist falling sleep. It has not been validated as extensively as the MSLT.
In general, wakefulness tests were found to be very sensitive to the effects of alcohol. The time to fall asleep was shorter with BACs of 0.010 g/dl and higher, except for two instances, one time at 0.021 g/dl and the other at 0.034 g/dl. The latter result was obtained with the RTSW, arguably the less sensitive of the two test.
3.2.4. Vigilance Tasks (Figure 3, Table 4 in Appendix A)
Nine vigilance studies produced 18 behavioral test results, of which 16 showed alcohol impairment. None of the studies reviewed examined vigilance at BACs below 0.020 g/dl, and two studies reported that there was no impairment at BACs of 0.021 and 0.028 g/dl. Note that one of the studies (Gustafson, 1986) required the subjects to press a switch as rapidly as possible when a tone of 1000 hz at 90 db was presented. A tone of that magnitude might alert subjects and offset the effects of alcohol, particularly at low BACs. At BACs of 0.030 g/dl and above, impairment was reported consistently across all studies.
Vigilance studies which had been published in the literature at the time of the Moskowitz and Robinson review were considerably less likely to show impairment by alcohol. Clearly, since then, more sensitive measures of vigilance have been developed.
3.2.5. Tracking (Figure 3, Table 5 in Appendix A)
Eleven studies of tracking produced 23 behavioral test results. Overall, the results indicated that threshold of impairment varied as a function of the type of tracking task used.
3.2.6. Perception (Figure 3, Table 6 in Appendix A)
Twelve studies produced 35 test results. Studies in this category used tasks which differed widely in terms of information processing requirements. Tasks included time estimation, auditory signal detection, visual search, pattern recognition, and traffic hazard perception. The diversity of mental workload is believed to underlie the reported diversity in alcohol sensitivity. In general, the evidence indicates a lack of significant impairment of perceptual abilities below BACs of 0.080 g/dl, although there were some reports of impairment at lower BACs. The lowest impairing BAC (0.037 g/dl) was reported by Lapp et al. (1994), and the highest BAC at which impairment was not found (0.080 g/dl) was reported by Heishman et al., (1997). Interestingly, both of these findings were both obtained with time production/estimation tasks.
Moskowitz and Robinson found perception tasks to be far more sensitive to alcohol than the previous paragraph reports. However, the studies in that earlier review reported on the examination of behaviors quite unlike those examined by investigators in the more recent studies reviewed here.
3.2.7. Visual Functions (Figure 4, Table 7 in Appendix A)
Nineteen studies examined alcohol effects on visual functions, producing a total of 63 behavioral tests. In general, the reports of impairment were consistent at 0.030 g/dl and higher. Many different behavioral functions were included in this category, including visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, eye movements and ocular motor control. Visual acuity appears not to be affected by alcohol below 0.070 g/dl BAC, a finding which is consistent with earlier studies. On the other hand, contrast sensitivity (the ability to discern spatially distinct luminance differences) and tests of oculomotor control were impaired by alcohol at 0.030 g/dl. Mattila et al. (1992), for example, found that subjects' coordination of extra-ocular muscles was significantly affected at 0.026 g/dl.
3.2.8. Cognitive Tasks (Figure 4, Table 8 in Appendix A)
This category encompassed 31 diverse studies with 145 test reports. The tasks varied considerably in assumed information processing characteristics and in sensitivity to alcohol. So perhaps it is not surprising that the appearance of impairment by alcohol varied from as low as 0.005 g/dl to as high as 0.160 g/dl.
Studies of backward masking, a well established measure of information processing rate or perceptual speed, found impairment at 0.030 g/dl (Wilkinson, 1995). Digit-symbol substitution tasks, on the other hand, did not reliably show a deficit until BACs above 0.060 g/dl. Even higher thresholds applied to card sorting, grammatical reasoning, and the Sternberg memory task. Card sorting tests were not generally affected by BACs below 0.090 g/dl, although Lyvers & Maltzman (1991) reported impairment at BACs below 0.050 g/dl. Grammatical and mathematical reasoning tests were not generally affected by BACs below 0.080 g/dl, although Heishman et al. (1997) and Kennedy et al. (1993) reported impairment at BACs of 0.025 g/dl and 0.060 g/dl, respectively. Memory tests, including the Sternberg memory tests, which require subjects to memorize a set of symbols (letters or numbers) and to later determine whether a short sequence of symbols contains the memorized set, were not affected by BACs below 0.060 g/dl. A notable exception was the results reported by Millar et al. (1995) who reported impairment at BACs below 0.020 g/dl in selective reminding tasks.
It is difficult to summarize the evidence concerning alcohol effects on cognitive tasks. As can be recognized, the tasks discussed above have little in common behaviorally, and some are complex and likely require more than one cognitive function.
3.2.9. Psychomotor Skills (Figure 4, Table 9 in Appendix A)
Eighteen studies of the effects of alcohol on psychomotor skills produced 57 tests, 33 of which found impairment and 24 did not. Because of the diverse nature of psychomotor skills and the tests of those skills, it is difficult to establish a threshold for alcohol effects. For that reason, the results have been further divided into three task groups: Finger tapping, body balance, and skilled physical tasks.
3.2.10. Choice Reaction Time (Figure 4, Table 10 in Appendix A)
Choice reaction time experiments use multiple stimuli and response possibilities, thereby placing a greater information processing load on subjects than simple reaction time. Fifteen choice reaction time studies produced 37 behavioral test results. Although most choice reaction time studies showed impairment by alcohol, it was only at 0.060 g/dl that there were more reports of impairment than of no impairment. By 0.080 g/dl, however, more than 80% of the studies reported evidence of complex reaction time impairment. Differences in findings are attributable to a wide range of stimulus and response conditions. There is no doubt that choice reaction time is more sensitive to the effects of alcohol than simple reaction time, but a variety of experimental methods under this single rubric leads to differing findings.
3.2.11. Simple Reaction Time (Figure 4, Table 11 in Appendix A)
Five studies with 20 test results at various BACs examined alcohol effects on simple reaction time. Moskowitz & Robinson (1988) concluded that simple reaction time is an insensitive measure. The experiments involve repetitive testing with a single known stimulus and a single known response. Subjects not only know where and what the stimulus is and what the single response option is, they may also be cued when a stimulus is about to occur. As Figure 4 suggests, most experiments using simple reaction time as a measure failed to show any alcohol effects. These tasks, of course, are unrelated to the reaction time demands of actual driving where it is rare for a drivers to know about the initiating stimulus in advance or to know what response will be required.
3.2.12. Critical Flicker Fusion (Figure 4, Table 12 in Appendix A)
In Critical Flicker Fusion (CFF) a subject indicates the threshold at which he/she perceives a flickering on/off light to be constant; that is, not flickering anymore. It has frequently been used in studies of psychoactive drugs. In seven studies at 18 BACs, CFF was an extremely insensitive measure for which impairment occurred only above 0.100 g/dl BAC. Continued use of this test to examine the effects of alcohol on driving related behavior is unwarranted, both because of its insensitivity to alcohol, but also because there is no known relationship to driving.
3.2.13. Aftereffects (Table 13 in Appendix A)
The research area of alcohol aftereffects emerged during the last decade. It examines the residual effects after a positive BAC has declined to zero. Aftereffects are distinguished from hangovers, which are experienced subjectively, and may affect performance without subjective reaction. Twelve studies examined aftereffects of alcohol and produced 25 behavioral test results, of which six reported impairment and 19 did not. A variety of measures included tracking, body sway, eye movements, simple reaction time, critical flicker fusion, symbol copying and others. In the reported impairment, however, only three response measures were used: the MSLT, a flight simulator, and a measure of angular motion.
Reported findings appear to be a direct function of the measures used to study aftereffects. Angular motion, for example, as studied by Ross et al. (1995) used unusually elaborate and complex testing equipment. Subjects were seated in a compartment which rotated clockwise until they reported that the sensation of motion had stopped. Starting from 3 rpm, thresholds for detection of right turns (acceleration of the compartment) and for detection of left turns (deceleration of the compartment) were determined for each individual subject. The subjects' task also included calling out the direction of the turn while depressing a yoke button until the turning ceased, maintaining constant altitude by observing the altimeter and vertical speed indicator, making appropriate yoke inputs, and monitoring for two numbers on a separate visual search task. A significant shift in the threshold of angular motion was observed after the subjects ingested small quantities of alcohol and after a return to zero BAC.
Most other studies used less sensitive measures. Although this area of study has no bearing on the issue of BAC limits, the findings of impairment as a consequence of aftereffects is a traffic safety issue which needs further study.
4.1 Major Findings
This review of the literature provides strong evidence that impairment of some driving-related skills begins with any departure from zero BAC. By 0.050 g/dl, the majority of studies have reported impairment by alcohol. By BACs of 0.080 g/dl, 94% of the studies reviewed reported impairment. These results include behavioral response areas which are on the one hand insensitive to the effects of alcohol and on the other hand scarcely representative of the demands of driving, such as critical flicker fusion and simple reaction time.
There is evidence that behavioral areas differ in their relative sensitivity to the impairing effects of alcohol. This is in agreement with Moskowitz and Robinson (1988), Kruger (1990), Holloway (1994), and other investigators. Table 2 reports the lowest BACs at which different behavioral areas exhibit impairment.
|By Lowest BAC at Which
Impairment Was Found
By First BAC at Which
|0.100||Critical Flicker Fusion||Simple Reaction Time, Critical Flicker Fusion|
|0.060-0.069||Cognitive Tasks, Psychomotor Skills, Choice Reaction Time|
|0.040-0.049||Simple Reaction Time||Perception, Visual Functions|
|0.020-0.029||Choice Reaction Time, Visual Functions|
|0.010-0.019||Drowsiness, Psychomotor Skills, Cognitive Tasks, Tracking||Drowsiness|
|0.001-0.009||Driving, Flying, Divided Attention||Driving, Flying, Divided Attention|
The first column lists behavioral areas by the lowest BAC at which impairment was found. The second column lists behavioral areas by the first BAC at which 50% of the behavioral tests indicated impairment. That is, the point at which the majority of behavioral tests showed impairment. Note that, with the exceptions of simple reaction time and critical flicker fusion, all driving-related skills exhibited impairment by 0.070 g/dl in more than 50% of tests.
This review supports the suggestion by Ferrara et al. (1993) that discrepancies in test results reflect a lack of standardization in testing methods and that failures to find alcohol impairment at low BACs may be attributable to the use of tasks which are not sensitive to behavioral changes caused by alcohol. If studies only involving driving (in simulators and on the road), simulated piloting, divided attention, and vigilance are examined, 73% of the test results in those areas exhibited impairment by 0.039 g/dl. Including tracking and drowsiness, 65% of the tests performed by 0.039 g/dl showed impairment. Decisions with regard to BAC limit should not be determined on the basis of behavioral areas that are relatively insensitive to alcohol. Crash risk is determined by impairments of those behavioral areas which are important determinants of driving and which are the most sensitive to alcohol.
Virtually all subjects tested in the studies reviewed here exhibited impairment on some critical driving measure by the time they reached 0.080 g/dl.
4.2. Methodological Issues
It is impossible for a reviewer who is not physically present at the execution of the study to stipulate beyond the authors designation how to classify some of these studies. Unfortunately, the variability in results between studies, even within a category, limit the ability to provide advice on the use of response measures to investigate alcohol effects on driving. Researchers in psychometrics, who develop new behavioral tests, are obligated to provide adequate evidence of the validity and reliability of these tests before they are used in measuring behavioral functions in patients. It would appear incumbent on experimental investigators of alcohol and other drug effects to at least provide some defense as to the adequacy of their response measures. Hopefully, this review will contribute to putting to rest the utilization of critical flicker fusion and simple reaction time as measures for examining alcohol effects.
In discussing the imposition of BAC limits, the issue has been raised that not every individual is necessarily impaired at that specific limit. It should be noted that the BAC at which every single individual is impaired has not been an issue in any of the above studies. The requirements of experimental design precludes doing such an analysis. None of the behavioral variables examined, except perhaps for drowsiness, is so over-learned that there are no order or practice effects during an experiment. The majority of studies reported are within-subjects designs where each subject acts as his/her control and where the order of treatment, alcohol or placebo, is counterbalanced. Some subjects receive the alcohol treatment on the second day after their performance has improved from the first placebo treatment day. This makes it difficult to demonstrate impairment in all individuals, since the practice or order effect and the alcohol treatment effect are confounded. It is possible to make the assertion that subjects were impaired by 0.08 g/dl because a substantial majority of subjects would have to exhibit impairment in order for the study to report statistical significance. Thus, even for studies which have reported impairment at 0.010 g/dl, nearly all subjects would have had to demonstrate impairment.
4.3. Future Research
A valuable future area of research would be to examine the interaction of alcohol with sleep deprivation and circadian rhythms. There is strong evidence, produced by the studies on drowsiness, that ability to remain alert and functioning is impaired by alcohol. Nearly all the experiments included in this review involving drowsiness were performed during the day. Noting that the majority of alcohol-related crashes occur at night, it is clear that additional research on time of day is called for.
An additional area which should be examined further is the effects of alcohol on subjective responses. This would include effects on emotion, motivation and judgment. Many theories of driver behavior emphasize motivational and attitudinal factors as important determinants of safety. There is experimental literature demonstrating alcohol effects on aggression and other subjective behaviors. If the importance of the topic is granted, it would appear advisable to review the literature on the role of emotional/motivational factors in driving and the effects of alcohol on such factors. At this point in time, the literature appears incomplete. Note that both Kruger (1990), and Holloway (1994) indicated that subjective reactions were among the most likely to demonstrate impairment at low BACs.
Cohen, J., Dearnaley, E. J., & Hansel, C. E. M. (1958). The risk taken in driving under the influence of alcohol. British Medical Journal, June 21, 1438-1442.
Ferrara, S. D., Zancaner, S., & Giorgetti, R. (1994). Low blood alcohol concentrations and driving impairment. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 106, 169-177.
Fromme, K., Katz, E., & D'amico, E. (1997). Effects of alcohol intoxication on the preceived consequences of risk taking. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5(1), 14-23.
Holloway, F. A. (1994). Low-Dose Alcohol Effects on Human Behavior and Performance: A Review of Post-1984 Research. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine Technical Report DOT/FAA/AM-94/24 (47pp.).
Holloway, F. A. (1995). Low-dose alcohol effects on human behavior and performance. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 11(1), 39-56.
Krüger, H. -P. (1993). Effects of low alcohol dosages: A review of the literature. In: Utselmann, H. -D., Berghaus, G., & Kroj, G. (Eds.), Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety - T'92: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Cologne, 28 September - 2 October, 1992 (pp. 763-778). Cologne: Verlag TUV Rheinland.
Krüger, H. -P., Kohnen, R., Diehl, M., & Huppe, A. (1990). Auswirkungen geringer alkoholmangen auf fahrverhalten und verkehrssicherheit (Problemstudie). Bergish, Gladbach: Forschungsberichte der Bundesanstalt für Strassenwsen, Band 213.
Light, W. O., & Keiper, C. G. (1969). Effects of moderate blood alcohol levels on automobile passing behavior. (Research Report ICRL-RR-69-4) Providence, RI: U.S. Department of Health, education, and Welfare, Injury Control Research Laboratory.
Moskowitz, H., & Robinson, C. D. (1988). Effects of low doses of alcohol on driving-related skills: A review of the evidence. (Report No. DOT HS 807 280) Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, SRA Technologies, Inc.
Ranney, T. A. (1994) Models of driving behavior: A review of their evolution. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26(6), 733-750.
Shinar, D., Meir, M., & Ben-Shoham, I. (1998). How automatic is manual gear shifting? Human Factors, 40(4), 647-654.
Allen, R. A., Stein, A. C., Parseghian, Z., & Rosenthal, T. J. ( 1996). A driving simulator study of the performance effects of low blood alcohol concentration (Report No. 525). Hawthorne, CA: Systems Technology Inc.
Andre, J. T., Tyrrell, R. A, Leibowitz, H. W, Nicholson, M. E., & Wang, M. (1994). Measuring and predicting the effects of alcohol consumption on contrast sensitivity for stationary and moving gratings. Perception & Psychophysics, 56(3), 261-267.
Andre, J. T. ( 1996). Visual functioning in challenging conditions: Effects of alcohol consumption, luminance, stimulus motion, and glare on contrast sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2(3), 250-269.
Antebi D. (1982). The effects of alcohol on four choice serial reaction time. Medicine, Science and the Law, 22(3)181-188.
Azcona, O., Barbanoj, M. J., Torrent, J., & Jané, F. (1995). Evaluation of the central effects of alcohol and caffeine interaction. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 40(4), 393-400.
Baker, S. J., Chrzan, G. J., Park, C. N., & Saunders, J. H. (1985). Validation of human behavioral tests using ethanol as a CNS depressant model. Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Teratology, 7, 257-261.
Barnes, G.R., Crombie, J.W., & Adge, A. (1985). The effects of ethanol on visual-vestibular interaction during active and passive head movements. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 56, 695-701.
Barnes, G.R. (1984). The effects of ethyl alcohol on visual pursuit and suppression of the vestibulo-ocular reflex. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 406, 161-166.
Billings, C. E., Demosthenes, T., White, T. R., & O'Hara, D. B. (1991). Effects of alcohol on pilot performance in simulated flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 62, 233-235.
Brookhuis, K. A., & de Waard, D. (1993). The use of psychophysiology to assess driver status. Ergonomics, 36(9), 1099-1110.
Cohen, A. F., Hamilton, M. J., & Peck, W. (1987). The effects of acrivastine (BW825C), diphenhydramine and terfenadine in combination with alcohol on human CNS performance. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 32(3), 279-288.
Colburn, N., Meyer, R. D., Wrigley, M, & Bradley, E. L. (1993). Should motorcycles be operated within the legal alcohol limits for automobiles. The Journal of Trauma, 35(2), 183-186.
Collins, W. E., Mertens, H. W., & Higgins, E. A. (1987). Some effects of alcohol and simulated altitude on complex performance scores and breathalyzer readings. Aviation Space and Enviromental Medicine, 58, 328-332.
Colrain, I. M., Taylor, J., Mclean, S., Buttery, R., Wise, G., & Montgomery, I. (1993). Dose dependent effects of alcohol on visual evoked potentials. Psychopharmacology, 112, 383-388.
de Wit, H., Uhlenhuth, E. H, Pierri, J., & Johanson, C. E. (1987). Individual differences in behavior and subjective responses to alcohol. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 1, 52-59.
Deery, H. A., & Love, A. W. (1996). The effect of a moderate dose of alcohol on the traffic hazard perception profile of young drink-drivers. Addiction, 91(6), 815-827.
Doms, M., Vanhulle, G., Baelde, Y., Coulie, P., Dupont, P., & Rihoux, J. -P. (1988). Lack of potentiation by cetirizine of alochol-induced psychomotor disturbances. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 34(6), 619-623.
Fillmore, M. T., & Voget-Sprott, M. (1997). Resistance to cognitive impairment under alcohol: The role of environmental consequences. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5(3), 251-255.
Fillmore, M. T., & Voget-Sprott, M. (1995). Behavioral effects of alcohol in novice and experienced drinkers: Alcohol expectancies and impairment. Psychopharmacology, 122, 175-181.
Fillmore, M. T., Carscadden, J. L., & Vogel-Sprott, M. (1998). Alcohol, cognitive impairment and expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 174-179.
Fillmore, M. T., & Vogel-Sprott, M. (1994). Psychomotor performance under alcohol and under caffeine: Expectancy and pharmacological effects. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2, 319-327.
Finnigan, F., Hammersley, R., & Millar, K. (1995). The effects of expectancy and alcohol on cognitive-motor performance. Addiction, 90(5), 661-672.
Flanagan, N. G., Strike, P. W., Rigby, C. J., & Lochridge, G. K. (1983). The effects of low doses of alcohol on driving performance. Medicine, Science and the Law, 23, 203-208.
Gawron, V., & Ranney, T. (1988). The effects of alcohol dosing on driving performance on a closed course and in a driving simulator. Ergonomics, 31(9), 1219-1244.
Gengo, F. M., Gabos, C., Straley, C., Manning, C. (1990). The pharmacodynamics of ethanol: Effects on performance and judgment. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 30, 748-754.
Gustafson, R. (1986). Effect of moderate doses of alcohol on simple auditory reaction time in vigilance setting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 683-690.
Gustafson, R. (1986). Visual attentional span as a function of a small dose of alcohol. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63(2pt1), 367-370.
Gustafson, R. (1986). Alcohol and vigilance performance: Effect of small doses of alcohol on simple visual reaction time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 951-955.
Hartley, L., & Coxon, L. (1984). Effect of alcohol on a sentence-picture verification task. Ergonomics, 27(2), 195-203.
Hasenfratz, M., Bunge, A., Prá, G. Dal, & Battig K. (1993). Antagonistic effects of caffeine and alcohol on mental performance parameters. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 46, 463-465.
Heishman, S. J., Arasteh, H., & Stitzer, M. L. (1997). Comparative effects of alcohol and marijuana on mood, memory, and performance. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 58, 93-101.
Hill, J. C., & Toffolon, G. (1990). Effects of alcohol on sensory and sensorimotor visual functions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51(2), 108-113.
Hindmarch, I., Bhatti, J. Z., Starmer, G. A., Mascord, D. J., Kerr, J. S., & Sherwood, N. (1992). The effects of alcohol on the cognitive function on males and females and on skills related to car driving. Human Psychopharmacology, 2, 105-114.
Hindmarch, I., Kerr, J. S., & Sherwood, N. (1991). The effects of alcohol and other drugs on psychomotor performance and cognitive function. Alcohol & Alcoholism, 26, 71-79.
Hogan, R., E., & Linfield, P. B. (1983). The effects of moderate doses of ethanol on heterophoria and other aspects of binocular vision. Ophthalmic. Pfysiol. Opt., 3, 21-31.
Hogan, R. E., & Gilmartin, B. (1985). The relationship between tonic vergence and oculomotor stress induced by ethanol. Ophthalmol. Physiol. Opt., 5, 43-51.
Horne, J. A, & Gibbons, H. (1991). Effects on vigilance performance and sleepiness of alcohol given in the early afternoon ('post lunch') vs. early evening. Ergonomics, 34(1), 67-77.
Horne, J. A., & Baumber, C. J. (1991). Time-of-day effects of alcohol intake on simulated driving performance in women. Ergonomics, 34(11), 1377-1383.
Jääskeläinen, I., P., Alho, K., Escera, C., Winkler, I., Sillanaukee, P., & Näätänen, R. (1996). Effects of ethanol and auditory distraction on forced choice reaction time. Alcohol, 13, 153-156.
Jansen, A. A. I., de Gier, J. J., & Slangen, J. L. (1985). Alcohol effects on signal detection performance. Neuropsychobiology, 14, 83-87.
Katoh, Z. (1988). Slowing effects of alcohol on voluntary eye movements. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 59(7), 606-610.
Kennedy, R. S., Turnage, J., J., Wilkes, R., L., & Dunlap, W., P. (1993). Effects of graded dosages of alcohol on nine computerized repeated-measures tests. Ergonomics, 36, 1195-1222.
Krueger, H. (1986). Comparision of the effect of flurazepam, brotizolam and alcohol on psychomotor performance. Arzneimittelforschung, 36(3a), 616-620.
Krüger, H. -P., Kohnen, R., Diehl, M., & Hüppe, A. (1990). Auswirkungen geringer alkoholmengen auf fahrverhalten und verkehrssicherheit (Problemstudie). Bergisch, Gladbach: Forschungsberichte der Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen, Band 213.
Kuitunen, T., Mattila, M. J., & Seppala, T. (1990). Actions and interactions of hypnotics on human performance: Single doses of zopiclone, triazolam and alcohol. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5 (suppl. 2), 115-130.
Laberg, J. C., & Löberg, T. (1989). Expectancy and tolerance: A study of acute alcohol intoxication using the balanced placebo design. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 448-55.
Lamb, M. R., & Robertson, L. C. (1987). Effects of acute alcohol on attention and the processing of hierarchical patterns. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 11, 243-48.
Landauer, A. A., & Howat, P. (1983). Low and moderate alcohol doses, psychomotor performance and perceived drowsiness. Ergonomics, 26, 647-657.
Lapp, W. M., Collins, R. L., Zywiak, W., H., & Izzo, C. (1994). Psychopharmacological effects of alcohol on time perception: The extended balanced placebo design. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55(1), 96-112.
Leibowitz, H. W., Andre, J. T., Tyrrell, R. A., Hewitt, F. G., Cavanagh, P. R., & Simoneau, G. G. (1992). Contrast sensitivity during locomotion: The effect of alcohol. Invest. Ophtalmol.Visual Sci., 33, 1415.
Lex, B. W., Greenwald, N. E., Lukas, S. E., Slater, J. P., & Mendelson, J. H. (1991). Blood ethanol levels, self-rated ethanol effect and cognitive perceptual tasks. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 29, 509-515.
Lex, B. W., Rhoades, E. M, Teoh, S. K., Mendelson, J. H., & Greenwald, N. E. (1994). Divided attention task performance and subjective effects following alcohol and placebo: Differences between women with and without a family history of alcoholism. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 35, 95-105.
Louwerens, J. W., Gloerich, A. B. M., d. Vries, G, Brookhuis, K. A., & O'Hanlon, J. F. (1987). The relationship between drivers' blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and actual driving performance during high speed travel. In P. C. Noordzij & R. Roszbach (Ed.), Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety-T86 (pp.183-187). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Lukas, S., E., Lex, B. W., Slater, J. P., Greenwald, N. E., & Mendelson J. H. (1989). A microanalysis of ethanol-induced disruption of body sway and psychomotor performance in women. Psychopharmacology, 98(2), 169-175.
Lyvers, M., Maltzman, I. (1991). Selective effects of alcohol on Wisconsin card sorting test performance. British Journal of Addiction, 86(4), 399-407.
MacArthur, R. D, & Sekuler, R. (1982). Alcohol and motion perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 31, 502-505.
Mangold, S., Läubli, T., & Krueger, H. (1996). Effects of a low alcohol dose on static balance, fine motor activity, and mental performance. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 18(5), 547-554.
Marks, D. F., & MacAvoy, M. G. (1989). Divided attention performance in cannabis users and non-users following alcohol and cannabis separately and in combination. Psychopharmacology, 99, 397-401.
Mattila, M. J., Kuitunen, T., & Pletan, Y. (1992). Lack of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions of the antihistamine ebastine with ethanol in healthy subjects. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 43, 179-184.
Maylor, E. A., Rabbitt, P. M. A., James, G. H., Kerr, S. A. (1992). Effects of alcohol, practice, and task complexity on reaction time distributions. Quarterly Journal of Experimantal Psychology, 44A(1), 119-139.
Maylor, E. A., Rabbitt, P. M. A., James, G. H., & Kerr, S. A. (1990). Comparing the effects of alcohol and intelligence on text recall and recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 299-313.
Maylor, E. A., Rabbitt, P. M. A., James, G. H., & Kerr, S. A. (1990). Effects of alcohol and extended practice on divided-attention performance. Perception and Psychophysics, 48, 445-452.
Maylor, E. A., Rabbitt, P. M. A., & Connolly, S. A. V. (1989). Rate of processing and judgment of response speed: Comparing the effects of alcohol and practice. Perception and Psychophysics, 45, 431-438.
Maylor, E. A., Rabbitt, P. M. A., Sahgal, A., & Wright, C. (1987). Effects of alcohol on speed and accuracy in choice reaction time and visual search. Acta Psychologica, 65, 147-163.
Maylor, E. A., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1987). Effect of practice and alcohol on performance of a perceptual-motor task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(4), 777-795.
McMillen, D. L., Smith, S. M., Wells-Parker, E. (1989). The effects of alcohol, expectancy, and sensation seeking on driving risk taking. Addictive Behaviors, 14, 477-483.
Millar, S. A., Duncan, L., Tiplady, B. (1995). Ethanol-induced CNS depression and divided attention. Human Psychopharmacology, 10(4), 327-331.
Millar, K., Hammersley, R. H., & Finnigan, F. (1992). Reduction of alcohol-induced performance impairment by prior ingestion of food. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 261-278.
Mills, K. C., & Bisgrove, E. Z. (1983). Body sway and divided attention performance under the influence of alcohol: Dose-response differences between males and females. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 7, 393-397.
Mills, K. C., & Bisgrove, E. Z. (1983). Cognitive impairment and perceived risk from alcohol: Laboratory, self-report and field assessments. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44(1), 26-46.
Mongrain, S., & Standing, L. (1989). Impairment of cognition, risk taking, and self-perception by alcohol. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 69(1), 199-210.
Morrow, D., Leirer, V., & Yesavage, J. (1990). The influence of Alcohol and aging on radio communication during flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 61,12-20.
Morrow, D., Yesavage, J., Leirer, V., Dolhert, N., Taylor, J., & Tinkleberg, J. (1993). The time-course of alcohol impairment of general aviation pilot performance in a Frasca 141 simulator. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 64, 697-705.
Mulvihill, L. E., Skilling, T. A., & Vogel-Sprott, M. (1997). Alcohol and the ability to inhibit behavior in men and women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58, 600-605.
Nelson, T. O., McSpadden, M., Fromme, K., & Marlatt, G. A. (1986). Effects of alcohol intoxication on metamemory and on retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 115, 247-254.
Nicholson, M. E., Andre, J. T., Tyrrell, R. A., Wang, M., & Leibowitz, H., W. (1995). Effects of moderate doses of alcohol on contrast sensitivity for stationary and moving targets. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 261-266.
Oborne, D. J., & Rogers, Y. (1983). Interaction of alcohol and caffeine on human reaction time. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 54, 528-534.
Papineau, K. L., Roehrs, T. A., Petrucelli, N., Rosenthal, L. D., & Roth, T. (1998). Electrophysiological assessment (the multiple sleep latency test) of the biphasic effects of ethanol in humans. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 22(1), 231-235.
Pearson, P., & Timney, B. (1998). Effects of moderate blood alcohol concentrations on spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59(2), 163-173.
Perrine, M. W., Mundt, J. C., & Weiner, R. I. (1994). When alcohol and water don't mix: Diving under the influence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55(5), 517-524.
Pickworth, W. B., Rohrer, M. S., & Fant, R. V. (1997). Effects of abused drugs on psychomotor performance. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5(3), 235-241.
Post, R. B., Lott, L. A., Maddock, R. J., & Beede, J. I. (1996). An effect of alcohol on the distribution of spatial attention. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 260-266.
Price, D. L., Radwan, M. A. E., & Tergou, D. E. (1986). Gender, alcohol, pacing and incentive effects on an electronics assembly task. Ergonomics, 29(3), 393-406.
Price, D. L., & Flax, R. A. (1982). Alcohol, task difficulty, and incentives in a drill press operation. Human Factors, 24, 573-579.
Ranney, T. A., & Gawron, V. J. (1986). The effects of pavement edgelines on performance in a driving simulator under sober and alcohol-dosed conditions. Human Factors, 28(5), 511-525.
Reker, U., Müller-Deile, J., & Ehrlich, S. (1988). Modulation of coordinated head-eye movements by alcohol and benzodiazepines. Adv. Oto-Rhino Laryng., 42, 242-245.
Rimm, D. C., Sininger, R. A., Faherty, J. D., Whitley, M. D., & Perl, M. B. (1982). A balanced placebo investigation of the effects of alcohol vs. alcohol expectancy on simulated driving behavior. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 27-32.
Roehrs, T., Zwyghuizen-Doorenbos, A., Roth, T. (1993). Sedative effects and plasma concentrations following single doses of triazolam, diphenhydramine, ethanol and placebo. Sleep, 16(4), 301-305.
Roehrs, T., Beare, D., Zorick, F., & Roth, T. (1994). Sleepiness and ethanol effects on simulated driving. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 18, 154-158.
Roehrs, T., Zwyghuizen-Doorenbos, A., Timms, V., Zorick, F., & Roth, T. (1989). Sleep extension, enhanced alertness and the sedating effects of ethanol. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 34(2), 321-324.
Roehrs, T., Claiborue, D., Knox, M., & Roth, T. (1994). Residual sedating effects of ethanol. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 18, 831-834.
Rohrbaugh, J. W., Stapleton, J. M., Parasuraman, R., Frowein, H. W., Adinoff, B., Zubovic, E. A., Varner, J. L., Lane, E. A., Eckardt, M. J., & Linnoila, M. (1988). Alcohol intoxication reduces visual sustained attention. Psychopharmacology, 96, 442-446.
Rohrbaugh, J. W., Stapleton, J. M., Parasuraman, R., Zubovic, E. A., Frowein, H. W., Varner, J. L., Adinoff, B., Lane, E. A., Eckardt, M. J., & Linnoila, M. (1987). Dose-related effects of ethanol on visual sustained attention and event-related potentials. Alcohol, 4, 293-300.
Ross, L. E, & Mundt, J. C. (1988). Multi-attribute modeling analysis of the effects of a low blood alcohol level on pilot performance. Human Factors, 30, 293-304.
Ross, L. E., Yeazel, L. M., Chau, A., W. (1992). Pilot performance with blood alcohol concentration below 0.04%. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 63, 951-956.
Ross, L. E., & Mughni, W. N. (1995). Effects of alcohol on the threshold for detecting angular acceleration. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 66, 635-640.
Ryan, C., Russo, K., & Greeley, J. (1996). Testing the global slowing hypothesis: Are alcohol's effects on human performance process-specific or task-general? Acta Psychologica, 92, 59-78.
Schuckit, M. A. (1985). Ethanol-induced changes in body sway in men at high alcoholism risk. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 375-379.
Smiley, A, Noy, I., & Tostowaryk, W. (1987). The effects of marijuana alone and in combination with alcohol on driving performance. In P. C. Noordzij & R. Roszbach (Ed.), Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety-T86 (pp.183-187). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Taylor, J. L., Dolhert, N., Morrow, D., Friedman, L., & Yesavage, J. A. (1994). Acute and 8 hour effects of alcohol (0.08% BAC) on younger and older aircraft pilots' simulator performance. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 65, 718-725.
Taylor, J. L., Dolhert, N., Friedman, L., Mumenthaler, M., & Yesavage, J. A. (1996). Alcohol elimination and simulator performance of male and female aviators: A preliminary report. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 67(5), 407-413.
Tianwu, H., Watanabe, Y., Asai, M., Shimizu, K., Takada, S., & Mizukoshi, K. (1995). Effects of alcohol ingestion on vestibular function in postural control. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 519, 127-131.
van Steveninck, A. L., Gieschke, R., Schoemaker, H. C., Pieters, M. S. M., Kroon, J. M., Breimer, D. D., & Cohen, A. F. (1993). Pharmacodynamic interactions of diazepam and intravenous alcohol at pseudo steady state. Psychopharmacology, 110(4), 471-478.
Vermeeren, A., & O'Hanlon, J. F. (1998). Fexofenadine's effects, alone and with alcohol, on actual driving and psychomotor performance. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 101, 306-311.
Walsh J. K., Humm, T., Muehlbach, M. J., Sugerman, J. L., Schweitzer, P. K. (1991). Sedative effects of alcohol at night. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(6), 597-600.
Wang, M. Q., Taylor-Nicholson, M., E., Airhihenbuwa, C. O., Mahoney, B. S., Fitzhugh, E. C., Christina, R. (1992). Psychomotor and visual performance under the time-course effect of alcohol, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1095-1106.
West, R., Wilding, J., French, D., Kemp, R., & Irving, A. (1993). Effects of low and moderate doses of alcohol on driving hazard perception latency and driving speed. Addiction, 88(4), 527-532.
Wilkinson, C. J. (1995). The acute effects of Zolpidem, administered alone and with alcohol, on cognitive and psychomotor function. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 56(7), 309-318.
Wilkinson, C. J., & Moskowitz, H. (1989). Acute effects of loratadine, diphenhydramine and placebo, alone and with alcohol, on skill performance. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, 11, 476-482.
Willumeit, H., -P., Neubert, H. Ott, Hemmerling, K., -G, Schratzer, M., & Fichte, K. (1984). Alcohol interaction of lormetazepam, mepindolol sulphate and diazepam measured by performance on the driving simulator. Pharmacopsychiatry, 17, 36-43.
Yesavage, J. A., Dolhert, N., & Taylor, J. L. (1994). Flight simulator performance of younger and older aircraft pilots: Effects of age and alcohol. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 42(6), 577-582.
Yesavage, J. A., & Leirer, V. O. (1986). Hangover effects on aircraft pilots 14 hours after alcohol ingestion: A preliminary report. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 1546-1550.
Zulauf, M., Flammer, J., & Signer, C. (1988). Short-term influence of alcohol on spatial brightness contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmologica, 197, 159-165.
Tests Results, by Behavioral Area
Summary of Test Results for Driving/Piloting
|Morrow et al.||1990||Flight simulator (severe altitude errors, summary score)||0.001||Yes|
|Morrow et al.||1993||Flight simulator (severe altitude errors, summary score)||0.002||Yes|
|Roehrs et al||1994a||Driving simulator (left deviations, right deviations, absolute deviations, points out of range)||0.013||Yes|
|Morrow et al.||1990||Flight simulator (radio performance, summary score)||0.017||Yes|
|Louwerens et al.||1987||Driving (standard deviation of lane position, speed variability)||0.024||No|
|Billings et al.||1991||Flight simulator (serious errors)||0.025||Yes|
|West et al||1993||Driving (hazard perception)||0.025||Yes|
|Ross et al.||1992||Flight simulator (instrument departure procedural errors)||0.030||Yes|
|Willumeit et al.||1984||Driving simulator (composite score)||0.032||No|
|Ross et al.||1992||Flight simulator (intersection holding errors, basic IFR flight control errors, degree of error in position reports, failure to question clearance, communication errors)||0.033||Yes|
|Ross et al.||1992||Flight simulator (instrument departure procedural errors)||0.034||Yes|
|Ross et al.||1992||Flight simulator (intersection holding errors, basic IFR flight control errors, degree of error in position reports, failure to question clearance, communication errors)||0.035||Yes|
|Gengo et al.||1990||Driving simulator (standard deviation of reaction time)||0.040||Yes|
|Ross & Mundt||1988||Flight simulator (composite score)||0.040||Yes|
|Brookhuis & De Waard||1993||Driving (car following, standard deviation of lane position)||0.041||Yes|
|Morrow et al.||1990||Flight simulator||0.041||Yes|
|Morrow et al.||1993||Flight simulator (severe altitude errors, summary score)||0.042||Yes|
|Vermeeren & O'Hanlon||1998||Driving (standard deviation of lane position)||0.045||Yes|
|Roehrs et al||1994a||Driving simulator (left deviations, right deviations, absolute deviations, points out of range)||0.049||Yes|
|Willumeit et al.||1984||Driving simulator (composite score)||0.049||No|
|Smiley et al.||1987||Driving (speed on open road curves, peripheral stimuli detected, and standard deviation of velocity on runway curves)||0.050||Yes|
|West et al||1993||Driving (hazard perception)||0.050||Yes|
|Willumeit et al.||1984||Driving simulator (composite score)||0.050||No|
|Gawron & Ranney||1988||Driving (curve lateral position deviation, straight lateral position deviation, right road departure, curve speed deviation, straight speed deviation, time between same-side departures)||0.053||Yes|
|Gawron & Ranney||1988||Driving simulator (lateral position, number of times over the speed limit)||0.053||Yes|
|Allen||1996||Driving simulator (mean response time, throttle activity, curve error, standard deviation of lane position)||0.055||Yes|
|Morrow et al.||1990||Flight simulator (course performance, radio performance, summary score)||0.056||Yes|
|Horne & Baumber||1991||Driving simulator (mean following distance, standard deviation of mean following distance)||0.058||Yes|
|Colburn et al.||1993||Motorcycle simulator (leaving the roadway, total errors)||0.059||Yes|
|Flanagan et al.||1983||Driving (penalty points)||0.060||Yes|
|Louwerens et al.||1987||Driving (standard deviation of lane position, speed variability)||0.060||Yes|
|Horne & Baumber||1991||Driving simulator (mean following distance, standard deviation of mean following distance)||0.064||Yes|
|Rimm et al.||1982||Driving simulator (braking, steering)||0.064||Yes|
|McMillen et al.||1989||Driving simulator (lane changes, cars passed, time at maximum speed)||0.070||No|
|Ranney & Gawron||1986||Driving simulator (number of times over the speed limit)||0.070||Yes|
|Morrow et al.||1993||Flight simulator (severe altitude errors, summary score)||0.071||Yes|
|Taylor et al.||1994||Flight simulator (traffic avoidance, cockpit monitoring, landing)||0.077||Yes|
|Smiley et al.||1987||Driving (speed on open road curves, peripheral stimuli detected, and standard deviation of velocity on runway curves)||0.080||Yes|
|Taylor et al.||1996||Flying simulator (summary scores)||0.080||Yes|
|Louwerens et al.||1987||Driving (standard deviation of lane position, speed variability)||0.085||Yes|
|Colburn et al.||1993||Motorcycle simulator (leaving the roadway, total errors)||0.088||Yes|
|Morrow et al.||1990||Flight simulator (course performance, radio performance, severe altitude errors, summary score)||0.098||Yes|
|Morrow et al.||1993||Flight simulator (severe altitude errors, summary score)||0.101||Yes|
|Yesavage et al.||1994||Flight simulator (composite score)||0.101||Yes|
|Gawron & Ranney||1988||Driving (curve lateral position, curve lateral position deviation, straight lateral position deviation, left road departure, right road departure, curve speed, curve speed deviation, straight speed deviation, time between same-side departures, time outside lane)||0.103||Yes|
|Gawron & Ranney||1988||Driving simulator (# of obstacles struck, lateral position, number of times over the speed limit, total heading error, total lateral position errors)||0.103||Yes|
|Ranney & Gawron||1986||Driving simulator (curve heading error, curve lateral position, fixed curve lateral position, number of obstacles struck, number of times over the speed limit)||0.120||Yes|
|Louwerens et al.||1987||Driving (standard deviation of lane position, speed variability)||0.122||Yes|
|Roehrs et al||1994b||Divided attention task||0.008||Yes|
|Roehrs et al||1994a||Tracking and visual search||0.013||Yes|
|Millar et al.||1992||Primary tracking and secondary visual reaction time||0.014||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Tracking and visual search||0.020||No|
|Landauer & Howat||1983||Tracking and peripheral visual search||0.021||Yes|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Tracking and secondary task||0.026||Yes|
|Millar et al.||1992||Primary tracking and secondary visual reaction time||0.030||Yes|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983a||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.030||No|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983b||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.030||Yes|
|Wilkinson||1995||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.030||Yes|
|Wilkinson et al.||1989||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.030||Yes|
|Himdmarch et al.||1991||Compensatory tracking and detection of visual stimuli||0.033||No|
|Roehrs et al.||1993||Divided attention task||0.035||No|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.036||No|
|Finnigan et al.||1995||Primary tracking and visual secondary RT task||0.040||No|
|Krueger||1986||Compensatory tracking, number monitoring and visual perception||0.040||Yes|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.041||No|
|Marks and MacAvoy||1989||Central and peripheral light monitoring||0.043||Yes|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.047||No|
|Roehrs et al||1994a||Tracking and visual search||0.049||Yes|
|Landauer & Howat||1983||Tracking and peripheral visual search||0.050||Yes|
|Lex et al.||1994||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.050||No|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Tracking and secondary task||0.050||Yes|
|Wilkinson||1995||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.050||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Tracking and visual search||0.052||No|
|Roehrs et al.||1989||Divided attention task||0.055||Yes|
|Finnigan et al.||1995||Primary tracking and visual secondary RT task||0.056||Yes|
|Lex et al.||1994||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.060||No|
|Millar et al.||1992||Primary tracking and secondary visual reaction time||0.060||Yes|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.062||Yes|
|Finnigan et al.||1995||Primary tracking and visual secondary RT task||0.063||Yes|
|Himdmarch et al.||1991||Compensatory tracking and detection of visual stimuli||0.066||No|
|Maylor et al.||1990||Tracking and auditory detection||0.068||Yes|
|Lex et al.||1994||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.070||No|
|Wilkinson & Moskowitz||1989||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.070||Yes|
|Landauer & Howat||1983||Tracking and peripheral visual search||0.073||Yes|
|Finnigan et al.||1995||Primary tracking and visual secondary RT task||0.075||Yes|
|Lex et al.||1994||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.075||No|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Tracking and secondary task||0.076||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Tracking and visual search||0.078||Yes|
|Krueger||1986||Compensatory tracking, number monitoring and visual perception||0.080||Yes|
|Lex et al.||1994||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.080||Yes|
|Wilkinson||1995||Compensatory tracking and visual search task||0.080||Yes|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.089||Yes|
|Marks and MacAvoy||1989||Central and peripheral light monitoring||0.093||Yes|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.095||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Tracking and visual search||0.100||Yes|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.100||Yes|
|Himdmarch et al.||1991||Compensatory tracking and detection of visual stimuli||0.104||Yes|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Central and peripheral number monitoring||0.106||Yes|
|Krueger||1986||Compensatory tracking, number monitoring and visual perception||0.120||Yes|
|Himdmarch et al.||1991||Compensatory tracking and detection of visual stimuli||0.142||Yes|
Table A 3
|Roehrs et al||1994b||Multiple sleep latency test||0.010||Yes|
|Roehrs et al||1994a||Multiple sleep latency test||0.013||Yes|
|Roehrs et al.||1989||Multiple sleep latency test||0.020||Yes|
|Papineau et al.||1998||Multiple sleep latency test||0.021||No|
|Walsh et al.||1991||Multiple sleep latency test||0.034||Yes|
|Walsh et al.||1991||Repeated test of sustained Wakefulness||0.034||No|
|Roehrs et al.||1993||Multiple sleep latency test||0.035||Yes|
|Roehrs et al||1994b||Multiple sleep latency test||0.040||Yes|
|Roehrs et al||1994a||Multiple sleep latency test||0.049||Yes|
|Roehrs et al.||1989||Multiple sleep latency test||0.050||Yes|
|Papineau et al.||1998||Multiple sleep latency test||0.055||Yes|
|Roehrs et al||1994b||Multiple sleep latency test||0.060||Yes|
|Roehrs et al.||1989||Multiple sleep latency test||0.060||Yes|
| Table A4
Summary of Test Results for Vigilance
|Gustafson||1986||Auditory RT in a Sustained attention setting||Vigilance||0.021||No|
|Gustafson||1986||Visual RT in a Sustained attention setting||Vigilance||0.028||No|
|Rohrbaugh et al.||1987||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.030||Yes|
|Rohrbaugh et al.||1988||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.030||Yes|
|Wilkinson & Moskowitz||1989||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.030||Yes|
|Horne & Gibbons||1991||Auditory Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.034||Yes|
|Vermeeren & O'Hanlon||1998||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.045||Yes|
|Jansen et al.||1985||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.054||Yes|
|Gustafson||1986||Visual RT in a Sustained attention setting||Vigilance||0.059||Yes|
|Rohrbaugh et al.||1988||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.063||Yes|
|Rohrbaugh et al.||1987||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.065||Yes|
|Horne & Gibbons||1991||Auditory Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.066||Yes|
|Wilkinson & Moskowitz||1989||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.070||Yes|
|Rohrbaugh et al.||1988||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.086||Yes|
|Gustafson||1986||Auditory RT in a Sustained attention setting||Vigilance||0.088||Yes|
|Rohrbaugh et al.||1987||Sustained attention||Vigilance||0.090||Yes|
| Table A5
Summary of Test Results for Tracking
|Mangold at al.||1996||Pursuit tracking||0.011||No|
|Mangold at al.||1996||Pursuit tracking||0.014||No|
|Cohen at al.||1987||Adaptive tracking||0.018||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Tracking||0.020||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Tracking error severity index||0.021||No|
|Wilkinson & Moskowitz||1989||Critical tracking||0.030||Yes|
|Mangold at al.||1996||Pursuit tracking||0.036||No|
|van Steveninck et al.||1993||Adaptive tracking||0.038||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Tracking error severity index||0.040||No|
|Cohen at al.||1987||Adaptive tracking||0.043||No|
|Mangold at al.||1996||Pursuit tracking||0.043||No|
|Cohen at al.||1987||Adaptive tracking||0.044||Yes|
|Vermeeren & O'Hanlon||1998||Critical tracking||0.045||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Tracking||0.052||No|
|Fillmore & Vogel-Sprott||1994||Pursuit Rotor Task||0.054||Yes|
|Fillmore & Vogel-Sprott||1995||Pursuit Rotor Task||0.058||Yes|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Tracking error severity index||0.060||Yes|
|Maylor et al.||1990||Pursuit tracking||0.068||No|
|Wilkinson & Moskowitz||1989||Critical tracking||0.070||Yes|
|Collins et al||1987||Compensatory tracking||0.077||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Tracking||0.078||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Tracking error severity index||0.079||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Tracking||0.100||Yes|
|Heishman et al.||1997||Time estimation||0.005||No|
|MacArthur et al/||1982||Direction judgment||0.020||No|
|Heishman et al.||1997||Time estimation||0.025||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.025||No|
|Gustafson||1986||Visual search task||0.027||No|
|Maylor et all.||1987||Visual search task||0.028||No|
|Post et al.||1996||Visual spatial attention||0.028||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.030||No|
|Willumeit et al||1984||Audio-visual perception||0.032||No|
|Lapp et al.||1994||Time estimation||0.037||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.047||Yes|
|Willumeit et al||1984||Audio-visual perception||0.049||No|
|Deery & Love||1996||Traffic hazard perception||0.050||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.050||No|
|Willumeit et al||1984||Audio-visual perception||0.050||No|
|Baker||1985||Pattern reproduction following short visual presentation||0.055||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.055||No|
|Gustafson||1986||Visual search task||0.058||Yes|
|MacArthur et al.||1982||Direction judgment||0.060||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.060||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.065||No|
|Maylor et al.||1990||Auditory detection task||0.068||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.070||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.075||No|
|Lapp et al.||1994||Time estimation||0.078||Yes|
|Post et al.||1996||Visual spatial attention||0.078||Yes|
|Heishman et al.||1997||Time estimation||0.080||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.090||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.095||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Anticipation time||0.100||Yes|
|Maylor et all.||1987||Visual search task||0.130||Yes|
|Nicholson et al.||1994||Contrast sensitivity||0.011||No|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Eye movements||0.018||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Coordination of extraocular muscles||0.021||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity, depth perception||0.025||No|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Coordination of extraocular muscles||0.026||Yes|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Nystagmus||0.026||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity, depth perception||0.030||No|
|Ross & Mughni||1995||Flight simulator (detection of angular acceleration)||0.037||Yes|
|van Steveninck et al.||1993||Smooth pursuit, saccadic peak velocity, saccadic latency, saccadic inaccuracy||0.038||Yes|
|Katoh||1988||Eye saccadic velocity||0.040||Yes|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Coordination of extraocular muscles||0.040||No|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Eye movements||0.043||Yes|
|Nicholson et al.||1994||Contrast sensitivity||0.043||Yes|
|Hogan & Gilmartin||1985||Amplitude of accomodation, tonic accomodation||0.045||No|
|Hogan & Gilmartin||1985||Heterophoria (6m), heterophoria (33cm), Accomodative-convergence/accomodation ratio, lateral fusional ability, near point of convergence||0.045||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Depth perception||0.047||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity||0.047||No|
|Katoh||1988||Eye saccadic velocity||0.048||Yes|
|Barnes et al.||1985||Eye velocity||0.049||Yes|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Coordination of extraocular muscles||0.050||Yes|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Nystagmus||0.050||Yes|
|Pearson & Timney||1998||Contrast sensitivity||0.050||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Depth perception||0.050||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity||0.050||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity, depth perception||0.050||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity, depth perception||0.055||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Coordination of extraocular muscles||0.060||No|
|Pearson & Timney||1998||Contrast sensitivity||0.060||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Depth perception||0.060||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity||0.060||No|
|Hill & Toffolon||1990||Visual acuity, color vision, stereo vision||0.061||No|
|Hill & Toffolon||1990||Horizontal visual field, vertical visual field, accomodation, convergence||0.061||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Depth perception||0.065||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity||0.065||No|
|Katoh||1988||Eye saccadic velocity||0.066||Yes|
|Reker||1988||Latency of isolated eye||0.066||No|
|Reker||1988||Velocity of isolated eye, coordinated head-eye movement||0.066||Yes|
|Hogan & Linfield||1983||Accomodative-convergence/accomodation ratio, near heterophoria, positive fusional ability, accomodation||0.067||No|
|Hogan & Linfield||1983||Negative fusional ability, distance heterophoria, near point of convergence||0.067||Yes|
|Pearson & Timney||1998||Contrast sensitivity||0.070||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Depth perception||0.070||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity||0.070||No|
|Barnes et al.||1985||Eye displacement gain, eye velocity, vestibulo-ocular response||0.073||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Depth perception||0.075||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity||0.075||No|
|Leibowitz, et al.||1992||Contrast sensitivity||0.076||Yes|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Coordination of extraocular muscles||0.076||Yes|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Nystagmus||0.076||Yes|
|Barnes||1984||Visual pursuit, vestibular-ocular reflex suppression||0.077||Yes|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Coordination of extraocular muscles||0.079||No|
|Zulauf et al.||1988||Contrast sensitivity||0.080||Yes|
|Katoh||1988||Eye saccadic velocity||0.085||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Depth perception||0.090||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity||0.090||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Depth perception||0.095||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity||0.095||No|
|Pearson & Timney||1998||Contrast sensitivity||0.100||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Depth perception||0.100||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Visual sensitivity||0.100||No|
|Reker||1988||Latency of isolated eye, velocity of isolated eye, coordinated head-eye movement||0.107||Yes|
|Hill & Toffolon||1990||Visual acuity, horizontal visual field, vertical visual field, color vision, stereo vision, accomodation, convergence||0.134||Yes|
Summary of Test Results for cognitive Tasks
|Mangold et al.||1996||Digit-symbol substitution||0.011||No|
|Mangold et al.||1996||Digit-symbol substitution||0.014||No|
|Millar et al.||1992||Auditory short-term memory||0.014||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Card sorting||0.014||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Digit-symbol substitution||0.014||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Letter search||0.014||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Serial addition/subtraction||0.014||No|
|Millar et al.||1995||Recognition and memory task||0.016||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Color test||0.020||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Digit-symbol substitution||0.020||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Letter recognition||0.020||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Mental arithmetic||0.020||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Spatial orientation||0.020||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Sternberg||0.020||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Sternberg||0.020||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Digit-symbol substitution||0.021||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Symbol copying||0.021||No|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Digit-symbol substitution||0.026||No|
|Hindmarch et al.||1991||Sternberg||0.027||No|
|Millar et al.||1992||Auditory short-term memory||0.030||No|
|Wilkinson||1995||Visual backward masking||0.030||Yes|
|Roehrs et al.||1993||Digit-symbol substitution||0.035||Yes|
|Mangold et al.||1996||Digit-symbol substitution||0.036||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Card sorting||0.036||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Digit-symbol substitution||0.036||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Letter search||0.036||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Serial addition/subtraction||0.036||No|
|Lamb & Robertson||1987||Pattern recognition||0.037||No|
|Doms et al.||1988||Cross-out groups of four dots||0.038||Yes|
|Doms et al.||1988||Cross-out letter configuration||0.038||No|
|Doms et al.||1988||Memory||0.038||Yes|
|Doms et al.||1988||Symbol marking||0.038||Yes|
|van Steveninck||1993||Digit-symbol substitution||0.038||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Digit-symbol substitution||0.040||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Symbol copying||0.040||No|
|Hasenfratz et al.||1993||Digit patterns recognition||0.042||Yes|
|Mangold et al.||1996||Digit-symbol substitution||0.043||No|
|Millar et al.||1995||Recognition and memory task||0.043||Yes|
|de Wit et al.||1987||Digit-symbol substitution||0.046||Yes|
|Ryan et al.||1996||Item recognition||0.048||Yes|
|Hartley & Coxon||1984||Reading comprehension||0.049||Yes|
|Lyvers & Maltzman||1991||Card sorting||0.049||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Digit-symbol substitution||0.050||No|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Digit-symbol substitution||0.050||Yes|
|Wilkinson||1995||Visual backward masking||0.050||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Color test||0.052||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Digit-symbol substitution||0.052||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Letter recognition||0.052||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Mental arithmetic||0.052||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Spatial orientation||0.052||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Sternberg||0.052||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Sternberg||0.052||No|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Digit-symbol substitution||0.058||No|
|Gengo et al.||1990||Digit-symbol substitution||0.060||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Code substitution||0.060||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Grammatical reasoning||0.060||No|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Mathematical processing||0.060||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Pattern discrimination||0.060||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Spatial orientation||0.060||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Sternberg||0.060||Yes|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Digit-symbol substitution||0.060||Yes|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Symbol copying||0.060||No|
|Lex et al.||1988||Card rotation||0.060||No|
|Lex et al.||1988||Sentence completion||0.060||No|
|Lex et al.||1988||Identification of repetitions of sample digits||0.060||Yes|
|Millar et al.||1992||Auditory short-term memory||0.060||No|
|Lamb & Robertson||1987||Pattern recognition||0.061||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Digit-symbol substitution||0.062||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Card sorting||0.062||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Digit-symbol substitution||0.062||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Letter search||0.062||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Serial addition/subtraction||0.062||No|
|Maylor et al.||1990||Recall||0.064||Yes|
|Maylor et al.||1990||Reading||0.064||Yes|
|Fillmore et al.||1998||Digit patterns recognition||0.066||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al.||1991||Sternberg||0.066||No|
|Maylor et al.||1989||Letter recognition||0.069||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Digit-symbol substitution||0.070||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Digit-symbol substitution||0.075||Yes|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Digit-symbol substitution||0.076||Yes|
|Ryan et al.||1996||Item recognition||0.076||Yes|
|Collins et al||1987||Mental arithmetic||0.077||No|
|Collins et al||1987||Pattern recognition||0.077||Yes|
|Collins et al||1987||Problem solving||0.077||No|
|Fillmore & Vogel-Sprott||1997||Number patterns recognition||0.077||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Color test||0.078||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Digit-symbol substitution||0.078||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Letter recognition||0.078||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Mental arithmetic||0.078||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Spatial orientation||0.078||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Sternberg||0.078||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Sternberg||0.078||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Digit-symbol substitution||0.079||Yes|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Symbol copying||0.079||Yes|
|Nelson et al.||1986||Recall, judgment, and recognition||0.079||Yes|
|Oborne & Rogers||1983||Sternberg||0.079||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Digit-symbol substitution||0.080||No|
|Wilkinson||1995||Visual backward masking||0.080||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Card sorting||0.096||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Digit-symbol substitution||0.096||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Letter search||0.096||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Serial addition/subtraction||0.096||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Color test||0.100||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Digit-symbol substitution||0.100||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Letter recognition||0.100||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Mental arithmetic||0.100||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Spatial orientation||0.100||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Sternberg||0.100||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Sternberg||0.100||No|
|Hindmarch et al.||1991||Sternberg||0.104||No|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Code substitution||0.110||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Grammatical reasoning||0.110||No|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Mathematical processing||0.110||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Pattern discrimination||0.110||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Spatial orientation||0.110||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Sternberg||0.110||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Card sorting||0.117||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Digit-symbol substitution||0.117||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Letter search||0.117||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Serial addition/subtraction||0.117||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Card sorting||0.139||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Digit-symbol substitution||0.139||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Letter search||0.139||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Serial addition/subtraction||0.139||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al.||1991||Sternberg||0.142||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Code substitution||0.160||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Grammatical reasoning||0.160||No|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Mathematical processing||0.160||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Pattern discrimination||0.160||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Spatial orientation||0.160||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Sternberg||0.160||Yes|
Summary of Test Results for Psychomotor Skills
|Mangold et al.||1996||Body balance||0.011||No|
|Mangold et al.||1996||Body balance||0.014||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Circular lights||0.014||Yes|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Body balance||0.018||Yes|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Body balance||0.021||No|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Body balance||0.026||No|
|Price & Flax||1982||Drill press operation||0.028||No|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Body sway||0.030||Yes|
|Mangold et al.||1996||Body balance||0.036||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Circular lights||0.036||Yes|
|van Steveninck et al.||1993||Body balance||0.038||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Body balance||0.040||No|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Body balance||0.043||No|
|Mangold et al.||1996||Body balance||0.043||Yes|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Body balance||0.044||Yes|
|Price et al.||1986||Electronics assembly task||0.049||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Body sway||0.050||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Finger tapping, hand steadiness||0.050||No|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Body balance||0.050||No|
|Tianwo et al.||1995||Body balance||0.053||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Finger tapping, hand steadiness, body sway||0.058||No|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Finger tapping||0.060||Yes|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Body balance||0.060||No|
|Maylor & Rabbitt||1987||Video game||0.061||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Body sway||0.062||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Finger tapping, hand steadiness||0.062||No|
|Mills & Bisgrove||1983||Body sway||0.062||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Circular lights||0.062||Yes|
|Price & Flax||1982||Drill press operation||0.062||Yes|
|Price et al.||1986||Electronics assembly task||0.069||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Body sway||0.070||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Finger tapping, hand steadiness||0.070||No|
|Laberg & Löberg||1989||Hand steadiness and coordination||0.073||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Body sway||0.075||No|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Finger tapping, hand steadiness||0.075||No|
|Mattila et al.||1992||Body balance||0.076||Yes|
|Azcona et al.||1995||Finger tapping||0.078||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Body balance||0.079||No|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Body sway||0.080||Yes|
|Lukas et al.||1989||Finger tapping, hand steadiness||0.080||No|
|Price & Flax||1982||Drill press operation||0.092||Yes|
|Price et al.||1986||Electronics assembly task||0.093||Yes|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Circular lights||0.096||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Finger tapping||0.110||Yes|
|Pickworth et al||1997||Circular lights||0.117||Yes|
|Pickworth et al||1997||Circular lights||0.139||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Finger tapping||0.160||Yes|
Summary of Test Results for Choice RT
|Millar et al.||1992||RT to 1 of 5 circles||0.014||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Report wich of 6 lights turned on and off||0.020||No|
|MacArthur & Sekuler||1982||Choice RT||0.020||No|
|MacArthur & Sekuler||1982||Choice RT||0.020||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al.||1991||Estinguish 1 of 6 lights||0.027||No|
|Maylor et all.||1987||Choice RT to video characters||0.029||No|
|Jääskeläinen et al.||1995||RT to auditory stimuli||0.030||No|
|Millar et al.||1992||RT to 1 or 5 circles||0.030||No|
|Colrain at al.||1993||RT to presence of vertical check pattern||0.032||Yes|
|Finnigan et al.||1995||Report changes in 1 of 5 circles||0.040||No|
|Gengo et al.||1990||Report wich of 6 lights turned on and off||0.040||Yes|
|Colrain at al.||1993||RT to presence of vertical check pattern||0.043||Yes|
|Vermeeren & O'Hanlon||1998||Choice RT with distracting cues||0.045||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Report wich of 6 lights turned on and off||0.052||No|
|Finnigan et al.||1995||Report changes in 1 of 5 circles||0.056||No|
|Jääskeläinen et al.||1995||RT to auditory stimuli||0.060||No|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Four-choice RT||0.060||Yes|
|MacArthur & Sekuler||1982||Choice RT||0.060||No|
|MacArthur & Sekuler||1982||Choice RT||0.060||Yes|
|Millar et al.||1992||RT to 1 or 5 circles||0.060||No|
|Jääskeläinen et al.||1996||Choice RT with auditory distraction||0.062||Yes|
|Finnigan et al.||1995||Report changes in 1 of 5 circles||0.063||No|
|Hindmarch et al.||1991||Estinguish 1 of 6 lights||0.066||Yes|
|Maylor et al.||1992||2-, 4-, or 8-choice RT||0.067||Yes|
|Colrain at al.||1993||RT to presence of vertical check pattern||0.068||Yes|
|Mulvihill et al.||1996||Choice RT with inhibitory control||0.073||Yes|
|Finnigan et al.||1995||Report changes in 1 of 5 circles||0.075||Yes|
|Collins et al||1987||RT to onset of one of 5 lights||0.077||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Report wich of 6 lights turned on and off||0.078||Yes|
|Colrain at al.||1993||RT to presence of vertical check pattern||0.096||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Report wich of 6 lights turned on and off||0.100||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al.||1991||Estinguish 1 of 6 lights||0.104||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Four-choice RT||0.110||Yes|
|Maylor et all.||1987||RT to video characters||0.130||Yes|
|Hindmarch et al.||1991||Estinguish 1 of 6 lights||0.142||Yes|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Four-choice RT||0.160||Yes|
| Table A11
Summary of Test Results for Simple RT
|Heishman et al.||1997||Simple RT||0.005||No|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Respond to onset of visual clock||0.018||No|
|Heishman et al.||1997||Simple RT||0.025||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.025||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.030||No|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Respond to onset of visual clock||0.043||Yes|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Respond to onset of visual clock||0.044||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.047||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.050||No|
|Baker||1985||RT to auditory or visual stimulus||0.055||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.055||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.060||Yes|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.065||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.070||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.075||Yes|
|Azcona et al||1995||Respond to single stimulus onset||0.078||Yes|
|Heishman et al.||1997||Simple RT||0.080||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.090||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.095||No|
|Wang et al.||1992||Respond to light onset||0.100||Yes|
Summary of Test Results fof CFF
|Millar et al.||1992||Critical flicker fusion||0.014||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Critical flicker fusion||0.020||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Critical flicker fusion||0.021||No|
|Hindmarch||1991||Critical flicker fusion||0.027||No|
|Millar et al.||1992||Critical flicker fusion||0.030||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Critical flicker fusion||0.040||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Critical flicker fusion||0.052||No|
|Jansen et al.||1985||Critical flicker fusion||0.054||No|
|Baker||1985||Critical flicker fusion||0.055||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Critical flicker fusion||0.060||No|
|Millar et al.||1992||Critical flicker fusion||0.060||No|
|Hindmarch||1991||Critical flicker fusion||0.066||No|
|Azcona et al.||1995||Critical flicker fusion||0.078||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Critical flicker fusion||0.078||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Critical flicker fusion||0.079||No|
|Hindmarch et al||1992||Critical flicker fusion||0.100||Yes|
|Hindmarch||1991||Critical flicker fusion||0.104||Yes|
|Hindmarch||1991||Critical flicker fusion||0.142||Yes|
|Cohen at al.||1987||Adaptive tracking||0.000||No|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Body balance||0.000||No|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Eye movements||0.000||No|
|Cohen et al.||1987||Simple visual RT||0.000||No|
|Kennedy et al||1993||Delta||0.000||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Body balance||0.000||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Coordination of extraocular muscles||0.000||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Critical flicker fusion||0.000||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Digit-symbol substitution||0.000||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Symbol copying||0.000||No|
|Kuitunen et al.||1990||Tracking error severity index||0.000||No|
|Morrow et al.||1990||Flight simulator (severe altitude errors, summary score)||0.000||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Card sorting||0.000||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Circular lights||0.000||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Digit-symbol substitution||0.000||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Letter search||0.000||No|
|Pickworth et al.||1997||Serial addition/subtraction||0.000||No|
|Roehrs et al||1994b||Divided attention task||0.000||No|
|Roehrs et al||1994b||MSLT||0.000||Yes|
|Roehrs et al.||1989||MSLT||0.000||Yes|
|Ross & Mughni||1995||Detection of angular motion||0.000||Yes|
|Taylor et al.||1994||Flight simulator||0.000||Yes|
|Taylor et al.||1996||Flight simulator||0.000||No|
|Yesavage et al.||1986||Flight simulator||0.000||Yes|
|Yesavage et al.||1994||Flight simulator||0.000||Yes|