Technical ~eport Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

FM-AM-79-26 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Dote 

OCTOBER 1979 PERFORMANCE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL INTOXICATION AND 

6. Performing Organization Code HANGOVER AT GROUND LEVEL AND AT SIMULATED ALTITUDE 

8. 

7. Authorl s) 

Performing Orgoni ;z:ation Report No. 

WILLIAM E. COLLINS 

9. Performing Organi<~:otion Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

FM Civil Aeromedical Institute 

P.O. Box 25082 II. Contract or Grant No. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, s. w. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Work was performed under Tasks AM-D-77/78-PSY-62 and AM-C-79-PSY-75. 

16. Abstract 

Eight private pilots (four men, four women) were trained to perform on a twodimensional tracking task (joystick control of a localizer/glideslope instrument) and 

to respond as quickly as possible to the onset of a red pinlight, appended to the 

tracking instrument, by depressing a button on the joystick. Tracking and reaction 

time scores were obtained under both static (stationary) and dynamic conditions 

(during angular acceleration), at ground level and at a simulated altitude of 12,000 

ft. Subjects were tested in pairs one night per week for 3 consecutive weeks 

(alcohol, placebo, and sleep control sessions). Sessions began at about 1700, 

continuing through midnight to about 1100 the next day. Subjects performed in the 

evening after a monitored dinner, drank prepared beverages from 2100 to midnight, 

and were tested again. Subjects slept 4-5 hours, were awakened around 0645, were fed, 

and performed the tasks again, beginning about 0730.' Ground level test sessions 

always preceded ascent in the altitude chamber and sessions included completion of 

several questionnaires and rating forms by the subjects. 

At midnight following alcohol ingestion (3. 25 ml of 100-proof alcohol per kg of body 

weight), peak breath alcohol levels averaged 91 mg percent. Impairment in tracking 

performance and in visual reaction time occurred during midnight sessions following 

alcohol ingestion. While ratings of hangover and other questionnaire data indicate 

awareness of hangover symptoms, no hangover-related performance impairment was 

recorded during morning sessions. In addition, no significant altitude/alcohol 

interactions on performance were obtained during either acute intoxication or hangover 

lneriods. These results offer no evidence contrarv to the 11 8-hour rule." 

17, Key Words 18, Distribution Statement 

Alcohol Effects Document is available to t~ public through 

Hangover the National Technical Information Service, 

Alcohol/Altitude Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

Performance 

19. Security Clossif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif, {of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 19 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-721 Reproduction of completed page authorized 
PERFORMANCE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL INTOXICATION AND HANGOVER 

AT GROUND LEVEL AND AT SIMULATED ALTITUDE 

Introduction. 

Impairment of performance due to the ingestion of alcohol depends in part 

on the blood alcohol levels (BAL) produced and on the ability requirements 

of the task (18). Acute alcohol intoxication has been demonstrated to have 

deleterious effects on flying tasks, both in simulators (1,12,13) and in 

flight (2). These studies (1,2,12,13) and others suggest that decrements not 

only in the performance of flying tasks but also in the "time of useful 

consciousness" following acute exposure to high altitude (24) can be 

anticipated at BALs below 50 mg percent. 

~ Because the oxygen uptake of tissue cells is reduced both by alcohol 

istotoxic hypoxia) and in a different way by altitude (hypoxic hypoxia), a 

ynergistic interaction of the effects of alcohol and of altitude on performnee might be expected. Based primarily on his own studies (21,22) and one by 

wman (25), McFarland (20) concluded, "Thus if an airman ascends to even a 

moderate altitude with alcohol in his blood, he would be especially vulnerable 

to the effects. For example, the alcohol in two or three cocktails would have 

the physiological action of four or five drinks at altitudes of approximately 

10,000 to 12,000 ft." Also, "Airmen should be informed that the effects of 

alcohol are similar to those of oxygen want and that the combined effects on 

the brain and nervous system are significant at altitudes even as low as 

8,000 to 10,000 ft." These conclusions have been perpetuated through physiological training courses of both military and civilian pilots. 

However, Higgins et al. (14) assessed performance in an altitude chamber 

with reaction time and motor coordination tests at ground level, 12,000 ft, 

and 20,000 ft (the latter with supplemental oxygen) at several intervals 

during a 4-h period after subjects ingested alcohol (either 1.25 or 2.50 cc of 

100-proof bourbon per kg of body weight) with no significant results. The 

performance tests were insensitive to the main effects of either altitude or 

alcohol level. 

Pearson (26) assessed alcohol-hypoxia effects on performance comparing 

ground level to 12,000 ft (simulated) over 10-h periods. In a complex design 

that involved several types of tasks and replications of each condition, there 

were no significant main effects for alcohol (the mean peak BAL was 85 mg 

percent) and no significant interactions involving both alcohoJ and altitude. 

As noted by Pearson (26), both design and replication factors may have 

confounded possible effects suggested by trends in the data. 

Tests conducted several hours after alcohol ingestion permit an assessment 

of possible effects of so-called hangover periods on performance. In general, 

1 
studies designed to assess hangover effects have yielded no effects (7,9,15) or 

have reported mixed results (16,23,27,29). With regard to the latter, for 

example, Takala et al. (29) compared performance of four types of tasks (a 3-h 

test battery) under control, brandy-ingestion, and beer-ingestion conditions, 

Significant impairment occurred with all tests immediately after the 2~-h 

period of alcohol consumption, but the following morning (12~ h after drinkinw, 

in comparisons with the control condition, scores for the brandy condition were 

the same while scores for the beer condition were significantly poorer for one 

test (spatial relations) and better for another (manual dexterity). In 

contrast, a recent study by Bonte and Volck (3) reports motor performance 

decrements during hangover periods (16 h after the start of drinking) for 

three groups of subjects (the groups had mean peak BALs of 144, 165, and 205 

mg percent and hangover BALs of 1, 25, and 94 mg percent, respectively). 

Drinking times ranged from 6 to 8 h. Although the absence of a control group 

i might raise questions about the interpretation of the data for two of the ? groups, the third group appears clearly to have had performance deficits l during hangover, but that group's BAL averaged 94 mg percent at that time. 

The possible effects of altitude on performance during hangover periods 

were specifically investigated by Carroll, Ashe, and Roberts (5), who used 

pilots aged 23-31 and a task that involved both tracking a moving point source 

and canceling lights displayed in the peripheral visual field. Subjects were 

given a premixed orange juice/alcohol mixture, drank it at home within a 1-h 

period in the evening, and were tested 10 h later in an altitude chamber. 

Conditions for each subject included three dose levels (35, 70, and 105 cc of 

95 percent pure alcohol), a placebo, and 15 min of performance at each of three 

altitudes (ground level, 8,000 ft, and 12,000 ft). Although no data are 

presented (and there is no apparent demonstration of the sensitivity of the 

device to acute alcohol effects), the authors report no statistically significant detrimental effects on performance. Subjective hangover symptoms were 

noted as having occurred most frequently in the high-dose condition. 

The present study was a followup to a previous study (7) that assessed 

tracking performance and several other variables (i) immediately following 

alcohol ingestion and (ii) 8 h after drinking. That study also assessed 

possible differential effects of congener vs. noncongener alcoholic beverages. 

Although subjects showed performance impairment during acute intoxication 

(average peak BALs were 93 mg percent), there were no hangover effects on 

performance and no congener vs. noncongener differences, These laboratory 

results thus offered no evidence contrary to Federal Aviation Regulation 

91.11, which states in part that no one may act as a crewmember of a civil 

aircraft within 8 h after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage or while 

under the influence of alcohol (the so-called "8-hour " resent ,study 

examined the further poss~ ~ ~ty t at "p"er ormance decrements might be enhanqed 

at a s~mulated ate i • i!ih• ~OOO=ft" liflrln:g--acyte alCCilib~-~.ition and 

that altitude migh_t__in_tera_ct wi_tll hangover malaise to r"""ult i~_impaired 

performance 8 h or so after drinking. 

2 
Method. 

Subjects. Eight active general aviation pilots (four men, four women) 

ranging in age from 22 to 55 years (mean, 39.6 years) served as subjects. All 

subjects had participated with several other pilots in our previous study 

described above (7), and so were experienced in performing the task protocol. 

All represented themselves as light-to-moderate drinkers of alcohol who would 

have no trouble handling five or so ordinary-sized drinks of liquor in an 

evening. Their flying time ranged from 160 h to 20,000 h (overall mean = 

4,383; mean for men = 6,664; for women = 390) and they were variously certificated as commercial pilots, flight instructors, and private pilots. The 

subjects volunteered to spend one night a week for several consecutive weeks 

in the laboratory from 1700 to approximately 1200 the next day. 

Alcohol. Two kinds of drinks were provided the subjects. Each drink 

contained either a 100-proof alcoholic beverage or a trace of rum extract and 

food coloring (placebo), each mixed with 7-Up. The amounts of alcoholic 

beverage given were 3.25 ml per kg of body weight which was equally divided 

into four large drinks. Drinks contained two parts of 7-Up for each part of 

alcohol; placebo drinks were equivalent in volume but contained only 7-Up 

diluted by water in place of the alcohol plus a few drops of extract and 

coloring. Half the subjects received alcohol during the first week and 

placebo the next week; that order was reversed for the remaining subjects. 

During the last week (sleep control), all subjects had the placebo drink. 

Subjects were told that they would be receiving "some" alcohol in every drink. 

Breathalyzer readings were taken from an Omicron Intoxilyzer before 

drinking began (about 1945), immediately after the drinking period ended 

(midnight), and the following morning (about 0800). 

Tracking Task. Each subject performed a two-dimensional compensatory 

tracking task while exposed to angular accelera~ion (dynamic mode) and while 

stationary (static mode), The order in which subjects performed static and 

dynamic tracking was alternated each day. Tracking was performed at ground 

level and at 12,000 ft in an altitude chamber. The tracking task system 

consisted of an aircraft localizer/glide slope indicator and a joystick. The 

vertical and horizontal needles of the indicator were deflected by individual 

sinusoidal forcing functions with 15-s periods. The instruction was given to 

keep the needles in the centered or null positions by compensatory movements 

of the joystick; the task was similar to that used in previous studies (7,8, 

10) but the joystick control was intentionally less sensitive, i.e., there 

was a slight lag built into the joystick-controlled modification of needle 

deflections. The integrated tracking errors for localizer and glide slope 

deviations were recorded on separate channels of a Beckman TypEI!T 

electroencephalograph. 

An enclosed Vertigon rotation device (6) provided the angular stimulation. The 

rotation was programed by modifying the internal circuitry of the Vertigon to 

provide a triangular waveform stimulus with a period of 48 s and a peak 

3 
velocity of !120°/s. The chamber was in total darkness throughout the testing 

session with the exception of a light source that was focused on the tracking 

instrument to provide 1.0 fL of illumination. Immediately after tracking at 

ground level and at altitude, subjects rated their effort (0-25 percent, 26-50 

percent, 51-75 percent, 76-90 percent, 91-100 percent) and gave a 

self-appraisal of their performance (very poor, below average, average, very 

good, excellent) on a 5-point rating scale, separately for static and 

dynamic conditions. 

Reaction Time Task. A small red pinlight was attached to the localizer/ 

glide slope indicator, approximately 6 in from the edge of the instrument at 

the 2 o'clock position. The light was turned on during the tracking task at 

random, once in every 30-s interval. A pushbutton control at the top of the 

joystick enabled the subject to react to the illumination of this light; 

depressing the button turned out the light. The onset and duration (maximum 

duration was set at 12 s) of the light were recorded by pen deflections on the 

electroencephalograph; the time required for the subject to respond by turning 

out the light could be measured and converted to seconds of reaction time. 

Degree of Drunkenness, Hangover, Mood, and Anxiety Ratings. In addition 

to self ratings of effort and performance on the tracking task, subjects also 

provided four other types of ratings. 

1) Degree of Drunkenness. During the interval between static and dynamic 

tracking, subjects were asked to rate how "drunk" they felt (not at all, 

slightly, moderately, more than mod~rately, extremely). Ratings were 

obtained at ground level and at altitude during midnight and morning test 

sessions and were scored on a 0-4 scale. 

2) Hangover Ratings. At midnight and after breakfast both at ground level 

and at altitude, subjects completed a 20-item hangover questionnaire developed 

by Gunn (11) and also answered 4 additional items added by the author. The 

first 23 items comprised a checklist of symptoms (throwing up, stomach ache, 

hungry, headache, loose bowels, tight bowels, muscle aches, shaking, dizzy, 

feel hot, feel confused, eyes burn, backache, nose runs, nervous, tired, dry 

mouth, feel sad or depressed, ringing in ears, hurts to move, thirsty, 

nauseated, heartburn) to which subjects responded according to one of four 

categories (not at all, a little, some, quite a bit). Items were scored on a 

0-3 scale and a mean score was calculated for each subject. The final item 

("rate your hangover") was rated on a 0-4 scale (none, slight, moderate, strong, 

very strong) and constituted both a separate score and part of the overall 

hangover rating. The overall rating was obtained by a simple summation of the 

24 item scores. 

3) Mood. A list of 15 items from the 80-item Composite Mood Adjective 

Check List (CMACL) developed by Malmstrom (19) was devised on the basis of 

previous work in this laboratory with alcohol effects. The list comprised 15 

adjectives (active, drowsy, dull, sluggish, tired, sleepy, bored, lazy, 

leisurely, nonchalant, energetic, vigorous, fatigued, happy, and annoyed) 

4 
which the subject rated on a 9-point scale ranging from "not at all" 

descriptive through "moderately," to "definitely" descriptive of the 

subject's current feelings. Five mood scores were calculated, viz, fatigue, 

nonchalance, vigor, sleepy, and affect tone; the first four scores were 

determined according to Malmstrom (19) while affect tone was derived from the 

two final items on our checklist. This modification (mCMACL) of Malmstrom's 

list was administered at ground level and at altitude after drinking and 

after breakfast under all conditions. 

4) Anxiety. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) developed by 

Spielberger and his associates (28) was used to assess anxiety (or psychological arousal). One section of the STAI measures predisposition (Trait) 

toward anxiety or how the subject generally feels; the other section measures 

current anxiety level (State) or how the subject feels at that moment. 

Each section has 20 statements (e.g., I tire quickly, I feel content) and 

four response categories (almost never, sometimes, often, almost always, for 

Trait; not at all, somewhat, moderately so, very much so, for State). The 

Trait section was completed by all subjects during the week of practice. The 

State section was completed at ground level and at altitude before and after 

drinking and after breakfast. 

Procedure. All subjects had been exposed initially to several 3-h 

training sessions following which they had participated in a study (7) 

immediately preceding the present one in which they gained experience in all 

of the tasks to be performed. Since the tracking device used in this study 

differed slightly from the device used in the previous study, additional 

practice was provided for all subjects before data collection was begun. 

The experiment began at 1700 on each test day (see Table 1). Subjects 

were tested in four groups of two. Test days were Monday evening through 

Tuesday morning, Tuesday evening through Wednesday morning, Wednesday evening 

through Thursday morning, and Thursday evening'through Friday morning. 

Following a monitored dinner (subjects were not allowed to have coffee or 

beverages containing caffeine between dinner and breakfast, but they were 

allowed to smoke), subjects at ground level completed the STAI and mCMACL, 

took a breathalyzer test, and performed static and dynamic tracking with the 

reaction time task. Subjects were then taken to 12,000 ft in the altitude 

chamber where they repeated all tasks. Drinking time was from 2100 to 

midnight. Each subject had four large drinks with 45 min to finish each 

drink. Subjects watched television and played ping pong, cards, and table 

hockey to create a party-like atmosphere. The first postdrinking session was 

run at midnight immediately following drinking with subjects rating their 

degree of drunkenness, taking the breathalyzer test, completin\ the STAI, 

mCMACL, and hangover questionnaires, and performing the tracking and reaction 

time tests. After completing all tasks at ground level and at altitude, 

subjects were put to bed around 0230 in the Civil Aeromedical Institute's 

clinic facilities. The subjects were awakened at 0645 for breakfast and began 

their final testing session at 0730. Subjects returned for 2 more weeks 

(totaling 3 weeks) on the same day of the week for retesting. The "sleep 

5 
vel 

ses 

ins 

grc 

pei 

sel 

goc 

dy" 

gli 

the 

ran 

joy 

dep 

dm 

ele 

out 

to 

pro 

tra 

sli 

obt 

ses 

and 

by 

fir 

hun 

fee 

mou 

nau 

cat 

0-3 

("r 

ver 

han 

24 

Che 

pre 

adj 

lei 

1700 

1900 

1905 

1955 

2035 

2100 

0000 

0050 

0055 

0145 

0225 

0230 

0645 

0715 

0730 

0805 

0810 

0900 

0940 

Table 1. Procedural Schedule 

Predrinking session (PRE): Evening 

Dinner 

Breathalyzer, static and dynamic tracking tasks with reaction 

time, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Modified Composite Mood 

Adjective Check List 

Ascent in altitude chamber 

Reach 12,000 feet in chamber 

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Modified Composite Mood Adjective 

Check List, static and dynamic tracking tasks with reaction 

time 

Descent in altitude chamber 

Drinking 

Postdrinking session I (PI): Midnight 

Breathalyzer, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Modified Composite 

Mood Adjective Check List, drunkenness rating, Hangover 

Questionnaire, static and dynamic tracking tasks with reaction 

time 

Ascent in altitude chamber 

Reach 12,000 feet in chamber 

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Modified Composite Mood Adjective 

Check List, drunkenness rating, Hangover Questionnaire, static 

and dynamic tracking tasks with reaction time 

Descent in altitude chamber 

To bed 

Awakened 

Breakfast 

Postdrinking session II (PII): Morning 

Breathalyzer, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Modified Composite 

Mood Adjective Check List, drunkenness rating, Hangover 

Questionnaire, static and dynamic tracking tasks with reaction 

time 

Ascent in altitude chamber 

Reach 12,000 feet in chamber 

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Modified Composite Mood Adjective 

Check List, drunkenness rating, Hangover Questionnaire, atatic 

and dynamic tracking tasks with reaction time 

Descent in altitude chamber 

6 
control" week was the last week of the experiment. The differences in this 

week in relation to the preceding weeks were the absence of alcoholic 

beverages (subjects drank the same mixture as the placebo drinks) and elimination of the midnight test session. The absence of the latter permitted the 

assessment of possible effects due to the abbreviated sleep periods in the 

placebo and alcohol conditions. In this sleep control condition, subjects 

were in bed no later than midnight. 

All measures were obtained in the morning irrespective of the experimental 

condition and all measures were obtained at midnight for the placebo and 

alcohol conditions. During the predrinking session in the evening, all 

measures were obtained for each condition except those from the Hangover 

Questionnaire and the drunkenness rating. Analyses of variance (17) were 

conducted as follows: (i) for evening and morning scores from all three 

conditions, to assess overall hangover effects; (ii) for scoreS from all three 

sessions for the placebo and alcohol conditions, to assess the effects of acute 

intoxication and the relationship of those scores to scores obtained in the 

hangover period; (iii) morning scores on the Hangover Questionnaire and the 

drunkenness rating for all conditions; and (iv) midnight and morning scores on 

the Hangover Questionnaire and the drunkenness rating for placebo and alcohol 

conditions. Significant F ratios were treated first by simple effects tests 

and then by Tukey's HSD test (17). Because of the increased variability in 

postdrinking (midnight) scores, evening and morning comparisons with midnight 

scores for each measure (for the alcohol and placebo conditions) were 

additionally checked with the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test (4) (the latter 

yielded no major differences from results obtained by the initial analyses 

and, therefore are not reported). 

Results. 

Breathalyzer. The mean breathalyzer level was .091 percent (SD .021) 

immediately after drinking alcohol and .012 percent (SD .018) during the 

morning session, 8 h later. 

Reaction Time. Reaction times (RT) to the illumination of the red 

pinlight are presented in Table 2. The data show no obvious differences 

within or between evening and morning sessions among all conditions, and 

analyses of variance yielded no significant effects for these sessions. Longer 

RTs occurred at midnight for all trials in the alcohol condition (static and 

dynamic, ground and altitude); these sessional differences were significant for 

static scores (£ < .01) for the alcohol condition, with RTs at midnight being 

significantly poorer than either evening or morning scores in~every case (£ < 

.05-.01). Differences at midnight between alcohol and placebo conditions 

were significant for both ground (£ < .05) and altitude (£ < .01) in the static 

mode and for both ground (£ < .001) and altitude (£ < .05) in the dynamic mode. 

No effects of altitude or the hangover periocr were demonstrated. 

7 
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Reaction Time (RT) in Seconds to 

the Onset of a Peripheral Light During Static and Dynamic Tracking 

PLACEBO ALCOHOL CONTROL 

EVE MID MORN EVE MID MORN EVE MID MORN 

Ground Level 

Static RT M 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.5 

SD 0.3 0.2 0.3 o.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 

Dynamic RT M 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 

SD 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 o.l 0.2 

Altitude (12,000') 

Static RT M 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.5 

SD 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 o. 7 0.2 o.l 0.2 

Dynamic RT M 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 

SD 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0 .2 o.1 

Tracking Performance. The vector sums of tracking error were calculated 

(Table 3). The data show that (i) morning scores were numerically better 

(less error) than evening scores with one exception, dynamic tracking at 

altitude in the alcohol condition; (ii) midnight sessions in the alcohol 

condition yielded the poorest performance; and (iii) midnight scores in the 

placebo condition were intermediate between evening and morning scores at 

ground level, but better than evening and morning scores at altitude. 

Regardless of the condition or session, subjects performed with less tracking 

error in the static as compared with the dynamic mode. 

Statistical analyses yielded the following results. For the control and 

the placebo conditions, there were no significant differences across sessions 

at either ground or altitude for static or dynamic tracking scores. For the 

alcohol condition, the midnight (postdrinking) scores were significantly 

poorer than both predrinking and morning scores for static and for dynamic 

tracking (at ground level, £ < .05 and .01 for static tracking and £ < .001 

for dynamic tracking; at altitude,£< .001 in all cases). However, in 

evening vs. morning comparisons, there was an overall significant effect of ~ 

sessions for both static and dynamic tracking (£ < .05 in both cases). This 

overall effect can be attributed to better morning than evening scores in 11 

of the 12 comparisons for the two modes of tracking. As noted above, the 

effect was not strong enough to reach statistical significance in any single 

condition. 

8 
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for the Vector Sums of 

Tracking Error in the Static and Dynamic Modes 

PLACEBO ALCOHOL CONTROL 

Tracking Measure EVE I:IID MORN EVE MID MORN EVE MID MORN 

Ground Level 

Static M 209 207 202 226 283 203 205 195 

Error SD 52 47 63 85 109 63 54 53 

Dynamic M 234 225 212 246 366 221 223 201 

Error SD 51 60 57 92 155 76 62 51 

Altitude (12,000') 

Static M 218 239 196 210 315 195 195 190 

Error SD 63 89 51 80 165 64 54 54 

Dynamic M 225 260 223 220 402 224 212 200 

Error SD 47 105 85 69 182 89 57 59 

In comparisons of ground level scores with scores at altitude, no 

significant differences were obtained within or between any conditions for 

either static or dynamic tracking. 

Ratings of Effort and Performance. Mean ratings for tracking effort and 

performance are presented in Table 4. Effor~ was consistently rated at a high 

level, particularly during ground level tests (no less than a mean of 4.8 on a 

5-point scale); during altitude tests ratings were similar with three exceptions, viz, a mean rating of 4.6 for static tracking during the placebo 

morning-session and mean ratings of 4.4 at midnight during the alcohol 

condition for both modes of tracking. Performance ratings were more variable, 

ranging from 2.8 to 3.5 (on a 5-point scale) for all sessions except that at 

midnight for the alcohol condition. In the latter case, performance ratings 

ranged from 2.0 to 2.6 ("below average" performance). 

Alcohol vs. placebo comparisons yielded no significant effects for effort 

ratings. However,, for static performance ratings, significant effects (£ < 

.05 in all cases) were obtained for conditions, sessions, altitude, and the 

conditions-by-sessions interaction. Also, significant effec~s for sessions 

and the conditions-by-sessions interaction were determined for dynamic 

performance ratings (£ < .001 in both cases). With respect to these results, 

(i) midnight ratings for static tracking performance in the alcohol condition 

were significantly lower than both evening and morning ratings at ground level 

(they were also lower, but not significantly, at altitude); (ii) static 

9 
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Ratings by the Subjects of the Effort They 

Expended (1-5 scale) and the Quality of Their Performance (1-5 scale) 

for Static and Dynamic Tracking 

Rating PLACEBO ALCOHOL CONTROL 

Condition EVE MID MORN EVE MID MORN EVE MID MORN 

Ground Level 

Effort 

Static M 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 - 4.8 

Tracking SD 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.0 - 0.5 

Dynamic M 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.9 - 4.9 

Tracking SD 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 - 0.4 

Performance 

Static M 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.1 3.0 2.9 - 3.1 

,... Tracking SD 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.0 - 1.1 

0 

Dynamic M 2.8 3.4 3.1 3.4 2.0 3.4 3.5 - 3.1 

Tracking SD 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.8 - 1.0 

Altitude 

Effort 

Static M 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.9 4.4 4.8 5.0 - 4.9 

Tracking SD 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 - 0.4 

Dynamic M 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.4 4.8 4.9 - 4.9 

Tracking SD 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 - 0.4 

Performance 

Static M 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.3 2.6 3.1 3.5 - 3.1 

Tracking SD 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.6 1.2 - 1.1 

Dynamic M 3.4 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.3 3.4 3.5 - 3.5 

4fracking SD 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.9 - 0.9 

-~ ---
performance ratings at altitude were higher overall than the same ratings at 

ground level; and (iii) at ground level for both static and dynamic tracking, 

midnight performance ratings under the alcohol condition were significantly 

poorer than midnight ratings under the placebo condition (these differences 

accounted for significant sessions and sessions-by-conditions effects for 

both modes of tracking). 

Analyses of variance of the two types of ratings across all three 

conditions yielded only one significant effect for evening vs. morning 

comparisons; in static performance ratings, subjects rated their performance 

better (R < .05) at altitude than they did at ground level. 

Drunkenness and Hangover Ratings. Mean ratings of drunkenness and of 

hangover and mean overall scores on the Hangover Questionnaire for the 

midnight and morning sessions appear in Table 5 for the placebo and alcohol 

condition; only morning scores are lis.ted for the control condition. All 

subjects gave "O" ratings for drunkenness in morning sessions at both ground 

level and altitude with tqe exception of one subject in the alcohol condition 

at ground level. Comparison of alcohol and placebo scores at midnight showed 

that only one subject under placebo rated his drunkenness level above "O" 

(while at altitude). During the alcohol condition, subjects' midnight ratings 

averaged 1.5 at both ground level and altitude. 

Analysis of variance yielded no significant differences across conditions 

for morning scores. Comparisons of alcohol and placebo conditions yielded 

significant conditions, sessions, and conditions-by-sessions effects (E < .001 

in all cases). Simple effects tests showed that (i) midnight ratings in the 

alcohol condition yielded significantly higher scores than morning ratings at 

both ground level and altitude, and (ii) drunkenness ratings at midnight were 

significantly higher after alcohol than after placebo (E < .001 and .01 for 

ground and altitude, respectively). 

The Hangover Rating item was "O" only at midnight for the placebo treatment at ground level, and in the morning for the control treatment at 

altitude. One subject self-rated above "O" during each of the other placebo 

and control sessions. The alcohol condition yielded mean ratings of about 

1.0 at midnight and between 1.1 to 1.4 during morning sessions for both 

altitude and ground level. Analysis of variance yielded only a significant 

conditions effect (E < .01); alcohol produced higher ratings than either the 

control or placebo condition. Thus, this rating showed no effect of altitude 

and indicated no significant differences in scores between acute intoxication 

and hangover in the alcohol condition. 

.. Overall scores on the Hangover Questionnaire were lowest for the control 

condition, intermediate for the placebo condition, and highest for the 

alcohol condition. Analysis of variance of morning scores yielded a 

significant conditions effect (R < .01) accounted for by significantly lower 

control scores than both placebo (R < .05) and alcohol (R < .001) scores by 

HSD tests. These findings suggest that a main component of the poorer scores 

11 
Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Single-Item Ratings by 

the Subjects of Their Degree (0-4) of Drunkenness and 

Degree (0-4) of Hangover, and for Their Overall 

Scores on the Hangover Questionnaire 

MEASURE 

Ground Level 

Drunkenness 

Rating 

Hangover 

Rating 

Hangover 

Questionnaire 

Altitude 

Drunkenness 

Rating 

Hangover 

Rating 

Hangover 

Questionnaire 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

PLACEBQ 

MID MORN 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

5.1 

3.3 

0.12 

0.35 

0.13 

0.35 

5.5 

2.0 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.13 

0.35 

6.6 

3.5 

0.00 

0.00 

0.13 

0.35 

6.5 

3.2 

ALCOHOL 

MID MORN 

1.50 

0.76 

0.88 

0.99 

5.9 

3.9 

1.50 

0.93 

1.00 

1.07 

7.6 

2.9 

0.12 

0.35 

1.38 

0.92 

9.3 

3.0 

0.00 

0.00 

1.13 

0.99 

8.4 

5'. 3 

CONTROL 

MID MORN 

0.00 

0.00 

0.13 

0.35 

3.4 

3.2 

o.oo 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

2.1 

2.8 

on the questionnaire could be attributed to sleep loss effects in both the 

placebo and alcohol conditions. Analysis of placebo and alcohol conditions 

yielded significant overall effects for sessions and conditions (£. < .05 in 

both cases) but only one simple effects test reached significance (the higher 

morning vs. midnight score for the alcohol condition at ground level). 

Anxiety and Mood. Scores on the Trait section of the STAI averaged 29.09, 

which is a lower mean anxiety score on this test than the norm for college 

undergraduates (28). With regard to State scores (see Table 6), there were 

no significant differences between sessions, altitudes, or conditions. Hdkever, the two highest mean scores were obtained under the alcohol condition 

at midnight (31.8) and in the morning (33.4). 

Mood scores for the five factors assessed are presented in Table 6. At 

ground level, the poorest scores for the placebo and control conditions 

12 
Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations for "State" Scores on the State-Tral t Anxiety Inventory (STAI) 

and for Five Moods Assessed by the Modified Composite Hood Adjective Check list (mCMACL) 

PLACEBO ALCOHOL CONTROL 

Evt: MID MORN EVE MID MORN EVE MID MORN 

Ground Level 

STAI M 28.4 29.6 30.6 31.5 31.8 33.4 26.8 30,4 27.5 

so 4.7 3.6 2.6 10.4 8.4 8.6 4.4 4.1 4.1 

(mCMACL) 

Fatigue M 23.8 41.6 35.6 23.4 47.0 32.9 19.9 43.0 24.8 

so 9. 5 15.5 7.9 11.0 11.2 10.2 9. 7 14.4 10.4 

Nonchalance M 9.5 9.3 9. 5 9.5 9.6 8. 3 8. 5 10.6 8.4 

so 3.4 2.8 2.6 4.4 3.3 2.1 3. 9 3.4 2.0 

Vigor M 17.4 9.8 u. 5 16.9 11.9 11.4 18.6 u.o l7 .9 

so 4.2 3. 8 3.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 5.9 3.6 4.3 ,... Sleepy M 11.9 24.3 20.1 14.0 26.9 17.6 9.0 23.5 12.1 w so 5.6 11.4 7.0 7.0 7.6 7.9 4. 7 8.2 5.4 

Affect Tone M 8.4 7.0 7.0 7.9 8. 3 8.0 8.4 8.4 8.4 

so 1.9 2.1 2.5 1.7 3.1 2. 3 1.6 2. 5 2.1 

Altitude (12,000') 

STAI M 30.1 33.1 31.0 32 .o 35.3 33.9 27.9 26.3 

so 5.1 3. 7 4.0 10.3 12.9 8.4 4.7 4.2 

(mCMACL) 

Fatigue M 28.8 46.9 39.5 30.5 45.4 41.9 28.6 30.9 

so 8. 5 16.7 9.3 8.2 16.0 ll. 3 13.2 8.2 

Nondlalance M 9. 3 9.8 9.4 8. 6 9.4 9.1 10.3 9.8 

so 2. 6 J .8 2.1 2. 5 2.3 2. 6 2.8 2. 5 

Vigor M 15.6 10.4 11.0 13.5 7. 5 10.4 17. 3 15.1 

so 3. 7 2. 7 2. 7 5.1 4.6 3.1 3. 8 5.1 

Sleepy M 14.9 26.8 22.8 16 .o 27.0 22 .8 13.8 13.9 

so 4.5 10.8 6.7 7. 2 8.9 6.7 7.1 4.4 

Affect Tone M 7.6 7.4 7.6 7.6 6.8 7.1 8.1 8.3 

so 1.7 2. 5 1.5 1.9 2.2 1.7 2.2 1.7 

~ 
occurred at midnight for fatigue, vigor, sleepy, and affect tone (the latter 

yielded identical midnight and morning scores for both conditions); 

nonchalance was also poorest at midnight for the placebo condition. In the 

alcohol condition at ground level, nonchalance, vigor, and affect tone 

yielded poorest scores during the hangover session, while fatigue and sleepy 

scores were poorest at midnight. With the exception of nonchalance, the best 

morning scores occurred in the control condition (which provided the most 

sleeping time). 

With a few exceptions, mood scores at altitude were poorer than at ground 

level under all conditions. However, morning scores for the control condition 

at altitude (no midnight control scores were obtained) were uniformly better 

than the altitude scores for either the placebo or alcohol condition. 

Statistical tests indicated no significant effects in any case for the 

nonchalance and affect tone mood factors. In comparing the alcohol-placebo 

conditions across all sessions for the remaining three factors, altitude 

scores were regularly poorer (£ < .05). Fatigue, vigor, and sleepy scores 

yielded significant sessions effects (£ < .001 in all cases) and were each 

poorer during midnight sessions at ground level and at altitude (£ < .05-.001) 

as compared with evening scores following both placebo and alcohol. Midnight 

scores for these three factors also differed significantly from morning scores 

in several comparisons, and morning scores most often differed from evening 

scores. Thus, the dominant effect on these scores was the time of day of the 

assessments. 

Analysis of variance applied to the evening and morning mood scores 

yielded significant effects for fatigue (£ < .01), vigor(£< .001), and 

sleepy ratings (£ < .01), all of which were uniformly poorer in the morning; 

analyses by conditions indicated that the evening-morning differences were not 

significant for any of these mood factors in the control condition, were 

uniformly significant for placebo (£ < .05-.01), and reached significance 

following alcohol only for vigor at ground level and for fatigue and sleepy at 

altitude (£ < .05 in all cases). Fatigue and sleepy scores were each poorer 

(£ < .01) at altitude than at ground level, and the uniformly better morning 

scores for vigor and for sleepy in the control condition (compared with 

alcohol and placebo) produced a significant conditions effect (£ < .05) for 

these two factors. The reduced sleeping time associated with the placebo and 

alcohol conditions thus appeared to have a major effect on these scores. 

Sex Differences. Analyses of variance of the 17 sets of evening-morning 

(hangover) scores across the control, placebo, and alcohol conditions for the 

four men and the four women yielded no significant main effects due to sex. 

Moreover, among the interaction terms involving sex, (i) no four-way inter~ 

actions were significant, (ii) only two (dynamic RT, £ < .01, and static effort 

rating, £ < .05) of the 51 three-way interactions were significant, and (iii) 

none of the 51 two-way interaations was significant. Although there were no 

significant overall sex differences, men tended to have better scores on 

tracking, reaction time, and the fatigue and sleepy mood factors; women 

14 
tended to have generally higher ratings for the nonchalance and affect tone 

mood factors. 

Effects of Smoking. Two each of the four men and four women were 

smokers. Analyses of variance of possible evening-morning (hangover) effects 

attributable to smoking yielded no significant main effects across the 17 

performance, rating, and questionnaire variables for the three conditions. Of 

all the interaction terms involving smokers vs. nonsmokers, (i) no four-way 

interactions were significant, (ii) only two (STAI, E < .001, and sleepy mood, 

E < .05) of 51 three-way interactions reached signifiance, and (iii) four of 

51 two-way interactions (three of the latter were for mood ratings, E < 

.05-.001, and the other involved dynamic tracking, E < .05) reached 

significance. However, on the average, nonsmokers generally had better 

scores for tracking and reaction time; they had lower STAI scores and 

generally higher scores for sleepy mood, hangover, and drunkenness ratings. 

Discussion. 

In this study, significant impairment occurred for tracking performance 

and visual reaction time in both static (stationary) and dynamic (motion) 

modes during midnight sessions immediately following the ingestion of alcohol. 

Morning scores, however, showed no deleterious performance effects of the 

hangover period, and, in fact, an overall circadian effect of better morning 

performance was obtained for tracking scores. Thus, while the performance 

tests were sensitive to acute alcohol intoxication and the tracking task 

additionally showed small but consistent time-of-day effects, no 

hangover-related performance impairment was recorded. The higher hangover 

ratings and Hangover Questionnaire scores for the morning session following 

alcohol ingestion attest to the awareness of symptoms from the previous 

night's drinking, but the subjects were successful in not allowing those 

negative experiences to influence their performance. Similarly, the poorer 

mood ratings in the morning (as compared with evening scores) for fatigue, 

vigor, and sleepy due to the reduced sleeping periods in the alcohol and 

placebo conditions were not reflected in the subjects' morning performance at 

either tracking or reaction time tasks. Thus, no hangover effects og performance were demonstrated, although it is possible that the subjects had to 

expend more effort to-m-aiift·ain-perrormance:---- -- ----·~·-----

A consistent finding related to altitude was the increased error at 

midnight for both modes of tracking under both the placebo and alcohol 

conditions. It would appear that the fatigue, sleepiness, and reduced vigor 

that subjects uniformly reported at both ground level and altitude during 

this session may have interacted with the mild hypoxia of the altitude situation to produce these increased error rates. However, the iQteraction of 

altitude and alcohol yielded no statistically significant performance effects 

although the poorest average scores for both modes of tracking occurred during 

the midnight session at altitude in the alcohol condition. A substantial part 

of these increases in error for both the static and dynamic tracking modes 

was due to a single subject (his peak BAL was third highest among the 

15 
subjects) whose error rates following alcohol were markedly above his ground 

level score (about 75 percent higher in both cases). Actually, following 

alcohol ingestion, half the subjects performed better at altitude than at 

ground level during static tracking and three of the eight subjects were 

better at altitude in the dynamic mode. 

We found no general or differential effects of alcohol and/or of altitude 

on performance or on hangover symptoms that could be related either to sex or 

to the habitual smoking of cigarettes. 

obtained in this study show clear performance decrements 

acute intoxication. However, no deleterious performance effects were 

·fO~~~ned during the hangover period and there were no significant 

altitude/alcohol interactions on performance during eit' acute intoxication 

or hangover periods. While these findings thus offer no contradictions to the 

"8-hour rule," they should be interpreted cautiously since (i) our subjects 

(, were particularly well motivated and interested in the outcome of the research 

and (ii) additional aviation stressors such as engine noise were not present. 

While it appears likely that higher altitudes, higher BALs, longer periods at 

altitude, or a combination of these conditions would produce some significant 

interactions, it seems clear with regard to effects on performance, that there 

is no generalizeable relationship between mild hypoxia produced by about an 

hour of exposure to 12,000 ft and BALs under 100 mg percent. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

The assistance of Gregory N. Constant, Linda C. Foreman, and 

Deborah K. Taylor in the conduct of this study is gratefully 

acknowledged. Excellent support was provided by CAMI's 

Physiological Operations and Training Section in running the 

altitude chamber. 

16 
1. Aksnes, E. G. : 

Link Trainer. 

REFERENCES 

Effect of Small Dosages of Alcohol Upon Performance in a 

JOURNAL OF AVIATION MEDICINE, 25:680-688 & 693, 1954. 

2. Billings, C. E., R. L. Wick, R. J. Gerke, and R. C. Chase: Effects of 

Ethyl Alcohol on Pilot Performance. AEROSPACE MEDICINE, 44(4):379-382, 

1973. 

3. Bonte, W. and J. Volck: Untersuchungen zum Problem der 

Alkoholnachwirkungen. BLUTALKOHOL, 15:35-46, 1978. 

4. Bruning, J. L. and B. L. Kintz: Computational Handbook of Statistics. 

Dallas, Texas: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1968. 

5. Carroll, J. R., W. F. Ashe, and L. B. Roberts: Influence of the Aftereffects of Alcohol Combined With Hypoxia on Psychomotor Performance. 

AEROSPACE MEDICINE, 35(10):990-993, 1964. 

6. Collins, W. E.: Effective Approaches to Disorientation Familiarization 

for Aviation Personnel. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. 

AM-70-17, 1970. 

7. Collins, W. E. and W. D. Chiles: Laboratory Performance During Acute 

Intoxication and Hangover. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. 

AM-79-7, 1979. 

8. Collins, W. E., D. J. Schroeder, R. D. Gilson, and F. E. Guedry, Jr.: 

Effects of Alcohol Ingestion on Tracking Performance During Angular 

Acceleration. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 55(6):559-563, 1971. 

9. Dowd, P. J., J. W. Wolfe, and R. L. Cramer: Aftereffects of Alcohol on 

the Perception and Control of Pitch Attitude During Centripetal 

Acceleration. AEROSPACE MEDICINE, 44(8):928-930, 1973. 

10. Gilson, R. D., D. J. Schroeder, W. E. Collins, and F. E. Guedry, Jr.: 

Effects of Different Alcohol Dosages and Display Illumination on Tracking 

Performance During Vestibular Stimulation. AEROSPACE MEDICINE, 

43(6):656-660, 1972. 

11. Gunn, R. C.: Hangovers and Attitudes Toward Drinking. 

OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL, 34:194-198, 1973. 

QUARTERLY JOURNAL 

" 

12. Henry, P. H., J. A. Flueck, J. F. Sanford, H. N. Keiser, R. C. McNee, 

W. H. Walter III, K. H. Webster, B. 0. Hartman, and M. C. Lancaster: 

Assessment of Performance in a Link GAT-l"Flight Simulator at Three 

Alcohol Dose Levels. AEROSPACE MEDICINE, 45(1):33-44, 1974. 

17 
13. Henry, P. H., T. Q. Davis, E. J. Engelken, J. 

M. C. Lancaster: Alcohol-Induced Performance 

Link Trainer Tasks Using Experienced Pilots. 

1180-1189, 1974. 

H. Triebwasser, and 

Decrements Assessed 

AEROSPACE MEDICINE, 

by Two 

45(10): 

14. Higgins, E. A., A. W. Davis, J. A. Vaughan, G. E. Funkhouser, and 

E. M. Galerston: The Effects of Alcohol at Three Simulated Aircraft 

Cabin Conditions. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-68-18, 

1968. 

15. Idestrom, C. M. and B. Cadenius: Time Relations of the Effects of 

Alcohol Compared to Placebo. PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGIA, 13:189-200, 1968. 

16. Karvinen, E., M. Miettinen, and K. Ahlman: Physical Performance During 

Hangover. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL, 23:208-215, 1962. 

17. Kirk, R. E.: Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral 

Sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, p. 577, 

1968. 

18. Levine, J. M., G. G. Kramer, and E. N. Levine: 

Human Performance: An Integration of Research 

Abilities Classification. JOURNAL OF APPLIED 

1975. 

Effects of Alcohol on 

Findings Based on 

PSYCHOLOGY, 60(3):285-293, 

19. Malmstrom, E. J.: Composite Mood Adjective Check List. Unpublished 

manuscript, Los Angeles, California, University of California, 1968. 

20. McFarland, R. A.: Human Factors in Air Transportation. New York: 

McGraw-Hill, 1953. 

21. McFarland, R. A. and A. L. Barach: The Relationship' Between Alcohol 

Intoxication and Anoxemia. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 192(2): 

186-198, 1936. 

22. McFarland, R. A. and W. H. Forbes: The Metabolism of Alcohol in Man at 

High Altitudes. HUMAN BIOLOGY, 8(3):387-398, 1936. 

23. Myrsten, A. L., M. Kelley, A. Neri, and U. Rydberg: Acute Effects and 

After-Effects of Alcohol on Psychological and Physiological Functions. 

Reports from the Psychological Laboratories, University of Stockholm, 

No. 314, December 1970. 

24. Nettles, J. L. and R. N. Olson: Effects of Alcohol on Hypoxia. JOURNAL 

OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 194(11):135-136, 1965. 

25. Newman, H. W.: The Effect of Altitude on Alcohol 4o1erance. QUARTERLY 

JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL, 10:398-403, 1949. 

18 
26. Pearson, R. G.: Alcohol-Hypoxia Effects Upon Operator Tracking, 

Monitoring, and Reaction Time. AEROSPACE MEDICINE, 39(3):303-307, 1968. 

27. Seppala, T., T. Leino, M. Linnoila, M. Huttunen, and R. Ylikahri: 

Effects of Hangover on Psychomotor Skills Related to Driving: Modification by Fructose and Glucose. ACTA PHARMACOLOGICA ET TOXICOLOGICA, 

38:209-218, 1976. 

28. Spielberger, C. D., R. L. Gorsuch, and R. E. Lushene: STAI Manual. 

Palo, Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 24 pp., 1970. 

29. Takala, M., E. Siro, andY. Toivainen: Intellectual Functions and 

Dexterity During Hangovers; Experiments After Intoxication With Brandy 

and With Beer. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL, 19(1):1-29, 

1958. 

19