Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22957099›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Towards measuring brain function on groups of people in the real world.

Alan Gevins, Cynthia S Chan, Lita Sam-Vargas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The dynamics of musical participation.Musicae scientiae : the journal of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Neurophysiological pharmacodynamic measures of groups and individuals extended from simple cognitive tasks to more "lifelike" activities.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alan GevinsSan Francisco Brain Research Institute & SAM Technology, San Francisco, California, United States of America. alan@sfbri.org
Cynthia S Chan
Lita Sam-Vargas

Funding

NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL ATTENTION MULTIPLEXING TESTR44NS048815 · NINDS · SAM TECHNOLOGY, INC. · PI GEVINS, ALAN S · 2008 to 2010
$1.5M
NEUROLYZER: A NEUROPHYSIOLOGIC ALCOHOL RESPONSE INDEXR44AA014824 · NIAAA · SAM TECHNOLOGY, INC. · PI GEVINS, ALAN S · 2006 to 2008
$999k
SYSTEM FOR MONITORING SOCIAL COGNITIVE BRAIN FUNCTIONR43MH071865 · NIMH · SAM TECHNOLOGY, INC. · PI GEVINS, ALAN S · 2005 to 2006
$479k
NIAAA NIH HHS R44 AA014824NIAAA NIH HHS R44AA014824NIMH NIH HHS R43 MH071865NIMH NIH HHS R43MH071865NINDS NIH HHS R44 NS048815NINDS NIH HHS R44NS048815
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In three studies, EEGs from three groups of participants were recorded during progressively more real world situations after drinking alcoholic beverages that brought breath alcohol contents near the limit for driving in California 30 minutes after drinking. A simple equation that measured neurophysiological effects of alcohol in the first group of 15 participants performing repetitive cognitive tasks was applied to a second group of 15 operating an automobile driving simulator, and to a third group of 10 ambulatory people recorded simultaneously during a cocktail party. The equation derived from the first group quantified alcohol's effect by combining measures of higher frequency (beta) and lower frequency (theta) power into a single score. It produced an Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve of .73 (p<.05; 67% sensitivity in recognizing alcohol and 87% specificity in recognizing placebo). Applying the same equation to the second group operating the driving simulator, AUC was .95, (p<.0001; 93% sensitivity and 73% specificity), while for the cocktail party group AUC was .87 (p<.01; 80% sensitivity and 80% specificity). EEG scores were significantly related to breath alcohol content in all studies. Some individuals differed markedly from the overall response evident in their respective groups. The feasibility of measuring the neurophysiological effect of a psychoactive substance from an entire group of ambulatory people at a cocktail party suggests that future studies may be able to fruitfully apply brain function measures derived under rigorously controlled laboratory conditions to assess drug effects on groups of people interacting in real world situations.

Indexed as

AdultAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholic BeveragesAlcoholic IntoxicationArea Under CurveAutomobile DrivingBrainBreath TestsCognitionElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMalePlacebosROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID22957099
PMCPMC3434184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.