DOT/FAA/AM-95/3

Office ofAviation Medicine

Washington, D.C. 20591

Effects of Age and Low Doses

of Alcohol on Compensatory

Tracking During Angular

Acceleration

Howard C. Harris, Jr.

David J. Schroeder

William E. Collins

Civil Aeromedical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

January 1995

Final Report

J^SÄ" fc*

s

been'appxoved *»W^- -iccss and zals; its

distribution is uniirnited,

This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

1

©

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration TQ3SD I
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/AM-95/3

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Effects of Age and Low Doses of Alcohol on Compensatory Tracking

During Angular Acceleration

5. Report Date

January 1995

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

H. C. Harris, Jr., D. J. Schroeder, and W. E. Collins

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute

P.O. Box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address

Office of Aviation Medicine

Federal Aviation Medicine

800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplemental Notes

16. Abstract

Heightened interest in existing FAA regulations regarding alcohol and flying, with emphasis on the potential

effects of low blood alcohol levels on performance, indicated a need for research to help define effects of low doses

of alcohol on performance. This study was designed to assess the effects of age and three breath alcohol levels (0.04,

0.027, and 0.014%). Performance was assessed while subjects experienced mild angular stimulation. On the day

prior to drinking, 48 subjects drawn from three age categories (27-32, 42-47, and 57-62 years) completed four

training sessions on a compensatory tracking task (a localizer/glide slope instrument that required compensatory

tracking of both a horizontal and a vertical needle) with and without a secondary auditory recognition task, under 1.0

ft L. and 0.1 ft L. illumination conditions. The test day consisted of a pre-drinking session and three experimental

sessions conducted at the appropriate times on the descending limb of the alcohol curve, as indicated by breath

alcohol measurements. Mean performance scores for the three age groups were compared across the four sessions, (predrinking and three levels of alcohol). A Mutivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) test yielded a significant

interaction and a significant main effect (age and sessions) for the combined needle errors under the 0.1 ft L.

illumination level with the secondary task. The resulting simple effects tests revealed age differences at all postdrinking sessions favoring younger over older subjects, and poorer performance for the older age subjects at the 0.04%

BrAC level. When testing individual needle errors, MANOVA tests yielded a significant interaction and main

effects in the high illumination condition both with and without the secondary task for vertical needle errors.

Resulting simple effects Analysis of Variance tests yielded significant age and alcohol effects for the older age

subjects. The 0.04% level accounted for the alcohol effect. The alcohol and age interaction was accounted for by the

older age group at the 0.04% BrAC level. This study showed no evidence of performance decrement associated with

BrACs below 0.04%.

17. Keywords

Alcohol

Aviation

Performance

Angular acceleration

Compensatory tracking

Age

18. Distribution Statement

Document is available to the public

through the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield,

Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

23

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
EFFECTS OF AGE AND LOW DOSES OF ALCOHOL ON

COMPENSATORY TRACKING DURING ANGULAR ACCELERATION

INTRODUCTION

Previous vestibular research (Schroeder, 1971,

1972) has demonstrated that, in darkness, the pattern

ofalternate slow sweeps and fast return movements of

the eye (nystagmus) is depressed after alcohol consumption. However, under conditions where visual

fixation is permitted during angular stimulation, nystagmus is increased due to the inhibiting effects of

alcohol on the visual fixation mechanism (Collins,

Schroeder, Gilson & Guedry, 1971; Gilson, Schroeder,

Collins & Guedry, 1971; Schroeder, 1971; Schroeder,

Gilson, Collins, & Guedry, 1972). Further, these

studies demonstrated thatthe alcohol-lowered inhibition of nystagmus during angular acceleration results

in significantly higher compensatory tracking errors

than during static (no motion) conditions. Most of

the performance decrements occurred under relatively high dose intoxication; however, one study

(Gilson et al., 1971) detected significant impairment

at blood alcohol levels (BACs) of 0.027%. In that

study, performance on a localizer/glide slope tracking

task administered during angular motion resulted in a

significant performance decrement under the lower of

two levels of instrument illumination; that effect was

not obtained when subjects were stationary. The effect found by Gilson et al. (1971) was in part due to

the improved performance ofthe control group across

repeated test sessions, while the alcohol group still

evidenced some performance impairment when compared to the pre drinking level. These findings suggest

that, while an intoxicated person may perform some

tasks adequately when stationary, performance can be

impaired when motion is added.

In a review of the literature concerning the effects

of alcohol on driving-related behavior, Moskowitz

and Robinson (1988) report that behavioral skills

impairment was observed in 158 out of the 177

studies. Of those studies, 35 reported that impairment was detected at BACs of 0.04% or less. After

grouping the studies into 9 behavioral skills categories

(i.e., reaction time, tracking, concentrated attention,

divided attention, information processing, visual functions, perception, psychomotor skills, and driving)

the authors concluded that impairment would first be

noted on divided attention tasks and then on tracking

performance. Vigilance appeared to be least likely to

be affected by low to moderate levels of alcohol. An

updated review of the literature (Holloway, 1994)

provides additional support for these conclusions.

Billings, Wick, Gerke, and Chase (1972) determined the effects of alcohol on pilot performance

during actual flight in a Cessna 172. They demonstrated that when pilots flew under the influence of a

BAC of 0.04%, a significant increase in "major"

procedural errors was found. Other aspects of pilot

performance did not show any significant performance decrements. Ross and Mundt (1986) assessed

the effects of alcohol (0.04% BAC) on the simulator

performance of pilots and non-pilots during straight

and level flight and during an unusual attitude flight

segment where attention was diverted by other tasks.

Alcohol significantly impaired performance on some

tasks and was most evident in recovery from unusual

attitudes. In a recent study using four air carrier crew

members, Billings, Demosthenes, White, and O'Hara

(1991) found that their classification of "serious"

errors, but not the overall number oferrors, increased

significantly at a BAC of 0.025% when compared to

baseline. However, at the 0.05% BAC level, both the

serious errors and the overall number of errors were

below that noted for the 0.025% BAC level.

Few studies in the alcohol literature have included

an age variable in their research designs. Collins &

Mertens (1988) demonstrated that alcohol-induced

impairment resulted in greater performance decrements for older aged subjects. Linnoila, Erwin, Ramm,

and Cleveland (1980) demonstrated significant age

and alcohol effects, but no significant age by alcohol

interaction. With only 10 subjects per group, Linnoila

D

D

1

Dist

M

or

opcual
and co-authors believed that their study lacked sufficient power to demonstrate a significant interaction.

However, since the interaction trend was strong, ttests were performed between the two groups and

yielded a significant difference in performance at

placebo, 0.05%, and 0.08% BACs. They concluded

that "age and alcohol have a deleterious synergistic

effect on tracking performance" (p.494).

Morrow, Leirer, and Yesavage (1990) tested nonalcoholic, social drinking male pilots to determine if

age and alcohol would produce significant impairment differences between older subjects (mean age

42.1) and younger subjects (mean age 25.3) at .04%

and .10% BAC, during simulator flights. The results

of that study indicated that some aspects of performance did not appear to be significantly impacted

(e.g., heading errors); however, there was an increase

in altitude errors and in a combined-variable summary score for performance errors. These differences

were demonstrated more frequently for older, rather

than younger, subjects. In a later study, Morrow,

Yesavage, Leirier, Dolhert, Taylor, and Tinkenberg

(1993) failed to replicate the age-related differences in

performance.

The eight-hour "bottle to throttle" rule has long

governed behavior of the general aviation pilot with

respect to alcohol consumption and flying. In 1985,

Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs)

was modified to include a rule that no one could act

or attempt to act as a crew member with a blood

alcohol concentration of0.04% or higher. A year later

the regulation was modified to include an "implied

consent" provision, under which the crew member is

required to submit to an alcohol test when requested

by a law enforcement official. One possible difficulty

with this regulation is that it may imply to some crew

members that it is safe to fly with a BAC that does not

exceed 0.04%. Despite the existence of these regulations, a recent postmortem inquiry found 6% of

general aviation fatal accidents during 1989 and 1990

involved pilots with a BAC of0.04% or higher (Canfield, Kupiec, and Huffine, 1992). The National

Transportation Safety Board, in their review of the

accident statistics, "...believes that the presence ofany

alcohol in a pilot's blood jeopardizes safety" (Ross,

1988; p. 2). These observations and conclusions raise

a number of questions concerning the effects, at all

ages, oflow doses of alcohol on performance. Therefore, this studywas designed to test some effects oflow

dose alcohol ingestion on visual tracking performance

during angular acceleration, both with and without a

secondary auditory task.

METHOD

Subjects

Forty-eight men were recruited from each ofthree

age categories, 25 to 32, 40 to 47, and 55 to 62 years

old, and assigned to experimental and control groups.

All subjects were screened with the Cahalan, Crisin,

and Crossley (1967) Quantity-Frequency-Variability

Index to ensure that their drinking patterns conformed to that of "moderate" drinkers. Subjects were

also screened to confirm that they were not taking

drugs (over-the-counter, prescribed, or illicit) before

or during the experiment. They were requested not to

consume any alcoholic beverages, including mixed

drinks, beer, and wine on the day prior to participating in the experiment or during the test days. Three

alcohol groups, one for each ofthe three age groups,

included six subjects who held a pilot's license, and six

subjects who were non-pilots.

Apparatus

Split unit tracking task and rotation device. This

task has a divided attention component, and has

previously been used to assess alcohol effects on performance in this laboratory (Collins et al., 1971).

Components that were unique to this study were the

inclusion ofa secondary task involving auditory attention and the requirement to track both the horizontal

needle, which was in the plane of eye movements; and

the vertical needle, which was at a right angle to the

horizontal needle. The needles moved independently

of one another, and were constantly deflected by

sinusoidal forcing functions; subjects were required to

correct the deviations of both the horizontal and

vertical needles. As the primary task, tracking was

required in each of four trials during every session.

The subject made compensatory adjustments by use

of a joy stick with his dominant hand to keep the

needles ofthe aircraftlocalizer/glide slope indicator in
the center or null position, while experiencing a mild

earth vertical axis acceleration in a darkened room.

Deviations ofthe needles were considered errors, and

were integrated over one-second intervals. The values

were then summed and an average value was obtained

for each session.

Illumination for the instrument was provided by a

light that was projected through a tube to localize on

the display, thereby minimizing reflection in the otherwise light free room. Voltage across the 3vDC light

source was adjusted for a luminance of 1.0 ft-L, a level

comparable to that recommended for use in aircraft

displays at night. The light source calibration was

verified using a Minolta Chroma Meter CS100. A

second illumination level of 0.1 ft-L was used, which

was produced by placing a KodakWratten gelatin 1.0

neutral density filter in front of the projected light

source.

The angular stimulus was provided by a StilleWerner RS-3 rotation device programmed for continuous motion using a triangular wave form that

reached a peak rotation of 15 rpm in either direction

at a rate of 15°/sec2. The chair was modified to include

an enclosure to eliminate breeze cues to motion and

was fitted with a head rest, which served as a reminder

to the subjects to keep their heads upright and to

ensure that the horizontal semicircular canals were

positioned in the plane of motion.

Auditory Recognition Task. The secondary task

was presented during two ofthe four primary rotation

intervals. It consisted of listening to number strings

comprised of three digits (e.g., 5-2-1) followed by a

pause and then another string (e.g., 5-2-3). If the

subject heard a string that was identical to the previously presented string, the subject pressed a thumb

switch held in the non-dominant hand. Subject performance was scored for hits and false alarms. The

number strings were created by combining randomly

generated single digit numbers. The placement of

identical strings was also determined by random numbers. One identical number occurred in each block of

five numbers, yielding 12 identical number strings

out of the 60 presented on each tape. Six, threeminute tapes were recorded on 3M Scotch AVC 30-

minute audio-cassettes, and presented to the subjects

in a counterbalanced order on a Califone (Model

5270B) cassette tape recorder/player. The tape recorder/player was attached to an external speaker

located in the angular acceleration laboratory and

played at a constant volume.

Alcohol Levels Alcohol levels were determined

through use of a CMI, Inc. Intoxilyzer 5000, which

measures breath alcohol content (BrAC) in terms of

grams per 210 liters of air. Since BrACs are known to

drop at approximately .004% every 15 minutes

(Dubowski, 1985), and since the sessions were approximately 40 minutes in length, initial BrACs of

0.046%, 0.033%, and 0.020% were used in an attempt to have the desired BrACs of 0.04%, 0.027%,

and 0.014% at the mid point between the start and

completion of each alcohol testing session. Alcohol

testing sessions all occurred on the descending limb of

the alcohol curve, and were completed during the

same afternoon.

Alcohol Consumption. Subjects were given 1.62

milliliters (mis) of 80 proof Smirnoff vodka per kilogram of body weight (.505 mg/kg), mixed with 300

mis oforange juice and divided into two drinks. Two,

one-ounce scoops of crushed ice were added and the

beverages were stirred immediately before being given

to the subject. Each drink was consumed in 7.5

minutes. The alcohol amount was derived by multiplying the Moskowitz et al. (1985) formula by 1.15,

after adjusting for using 80 proofinstead of 40 proof

vodka. There were a few subjects who did not reach

the desired BrACs using this formula, in which case

they were given a "booster" drink of.081 ml per kg of

body weight (.025 mg/kg) — a modification of the

Lentz and Rundell (1976) formula, corrected for

using 80 proofinstead of95 per cent alcohol. Placebo

drinks were the same volume as the alcohol drinks and

consisted of an orange juice and water mixture with

five mis of vodka floating on the top of each drink to

provide an alcohol odor.

Procedure

The design implemented in this study consisted of

eight experimental sessions in all, covering two consecutive days. On the first day, subjects were given a

briefexplanation ofthe purpose ofthe study, followed

by a general overview ofthe tasks involved. They then

read and signed a consent form, were weighed, and
given breath tests to verify that they were not under

the influence of alcohol before beginning the study.

Following sedentary participation in data collection for another study, subjects were returned to the

Angular Acceleration Laboratory and entered the rotation device, where they received detailed instructions about this study. Subjects performed the

compensatory tracking task in a darkened room, while

undergoing mild angular acceleration. This task lasted

15 minutes and consisted of 4, three-minute trials.

Two of the four trials were under the 1.0 ft-L illumination condition, the others under the 0.1 ft-L illumination. These trials were presented in a counterbalanced

order across the eight experimental sessions. An experimenter entered the darkened room to remove or

replace the filter in front ofthe light source to change

illumination levels. Subjects were given one minute to

readjust to the dark upon entering the rotation room,

and after a change in illumination conditions. A 30-

second rest period was given between trials in the same

illumination condition. The secondary task was incorporated during one trial under each illumination

condition.

Each session on Day 1 was followed by a 15-minute

break, during which subjects could read magazines,

watch television, or just relax quietly. No one was

allowed to eat, drink, or smoke during the testing

session on either ofthe test days.

Following completion of the 4th session, subjects

were told to return at the same time the next day, 30

minutes after consuming a moderate lunch. They

were also reminded not to consume any alcoholic

beverages or medications that evening.

On the second day, each subject completed a

baseline breath test upon arrival, followed by compensatory tracking session (pre-drinking). Subjects

were then given 15 minutes to consume 2 drinks.

Fifteen minutes after the second drink, the breath

tests resumed and subjects were tested periodically

until they had reached their peak and had dropped to

a level of 0.046% on the descending limb of their

blood alcohol curve. The initial post-drinking testing

session was then administered. Breath tests continued

until a BrAC of 0.033% was reached and the second

post-drinking session was administered, followed by

breath tests until a BrAC of 0.020% was reached,

when the subjects were given the final post-drinking

session. After the final post-drinking test session,

BrACs were determined periodically until a BrAC of

0.00% was reached. Shortly thereafter, subjects were

permitted to leave the test site.

Design and Analysis

Prior to analysis, all measures were examined

through various Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) programs for accuracy of data entry,

missing values, and fit between their distributions and

the assumptions ofmultivariate analysis. No missing

values or outliers were found; therefore, no casewise

deletion of scores was necessary. The alpha level was

set at .05.

Three categories of age— younger, middle, and

older with 12 subjects in each group— two levels of

secondary task— absent and present— and two levels

ofillumination— high and low, were compared with

SPSS across a pre-drinking (0.00) session and three

levels of intoxication— 0.04, 0.027, and 0.014%

BAL— in a mixed factorial doubly repeated multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) (Tabachnick

and Fidell, 1989). There were four dependent measures: vertical and horizontal tracking error, and number of hits and false alarms on the secondary auditory

task.

RESULTS

The data presented in this section are organized

according to the type oflocalizer/glide slope tracking

errors: average combined needle errors, vertical needle

errors, or horizontal needle errors. Cell means and

standard deviations are presented, along with data

profiles for all statistically significant interactions and

main effects. Detailed MANOVA source of variance

tables are also included in this section.

Combined Needle Errors

Error measurements for both the vertical and horizontal needles were averaged creating an average combined error score. Cell means and standard deviations

are listed in Tables 1 and 2 for the two levels of

illumination. In the 4 groups ofsessions (2 tasks by 2

levels ofillumination) error increased with increasing
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for average (Avg) combined needle tracking errors under

the 1.0 ft L. illumination condition at each ofthe pre- and post- drinking sessions.

Session

Measure G roup 0.000% 0.040% 0.027% 0.014%

Without secondary task

Y M 102.04 122.65 98.54 93.42

SD 42.28 50.72 30.62 27.38

Avg combined Errors M M 142.96 153.25 147.75 153.88

SD 63.69 48.33 73.86 88.21

O M 165.70 213.33 159.54 154.88

SD 51.57 62.82 49.89 50.36

With secondary task

Y M 104.08 120.92 101.96 96.88

SD 30.52 55.50 37.51 25.56

Avg combined Errors M M 146.33 153.54 151.50 141.42

SD 66.09 50.33 76.91 81.01

O M 179.42 222.70 170.12 165.75

SD 63.27 83.18 56.44 56.35

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for average (Avg) combined needle tracking errors under

the 0.1 ft L. illumination condition at each ofthe pre- and post- drinking sessions.

Session

Measure Group 0.000% 0.040% 0.027% 0.014%

Without secondary task

Y M 186.67 190.29 167.25 148.00

SD 75.96 78.25 78.24 52.13

Avg Combined Errors M M 234.12 259.29 230.54 214.46

SD 68.65 95.16 83.60 85.17

O M 260.54 296.54 257.83 250.75

SD 75.77 83.70 81.21 70.03

With secondary task

Y M 178.50 190.62 169.33 161.04

SD 79.48 62.39 73.75 66.22

Avg Combined Errors M M 239.54 245.17 227.33 216.50

SD 59.37 88.03 85.30 96.19

O M 257.46 277.29 265.29 235.70

SD 71.10 77.95 81.61 66.88

age in all cases. The younger age group evidenced

lower mean error scores and less variablity than the

older age group in all post-drinking sessions. Combined error means reached their peak in 11 ofthe 12

cases (2 tasks by 2 illumination levels by 3 age groups)

at the 0.04% BrAC level.

5
1.0 ft L Level. Contrasting of the pre- and postdrinking sessions for 1.0 ft L illumination means, as

depicted in Figures 1 and 2, suggests main effects on

both session and age, but no age by session interaction. As seen in Table 3, main effects for both the age

and session variables were revealed both with and

without the secondary task. However, no statistically

significant interaction was found either with or without the secondary task.

When tested for simple effects, the age variable

without the secondary task yielded significant differences for all sessions. Using Tukey's Honestly Significant Mean Difference (HSD) posthoc analysis, mean

differences were detected between the younger and

older subjects at all pre- and post- drinking sessions,

and between the younger and middle age subjects at

the finalsession, the 0.014% level. Simple effects testsfor

sessions without the secondary task yielded statistically

Table 3. MANOVA source ofvariance table for averaged

combined needle error under 1.0 ft L. illumination.

Measure MS

Absent

df

SecondaryTask

F MS

Present

df

Main Effects

Age 108141.12 2 5.22* 88508.89 2 4.50*

Between Error 2722.68 33 19643.13 33

Session 12385.39 3 10.30** 6807.97 3 5.84**

Within Error 1202.79 99 1241.37 99

Interaction Effect

Age X Session 681.38 6 .56 385.01 6 .31

Within Error 1202.79 99

Simple Effects

1241.37 99

Session

Younger 1969.71 3 2.63 1303.10 3 2.13

Error 748.40 33 611.71 33

Middle 316.21 3 .38 355.69 3 .45

Error 830.22 33 796.56 33

Older 8756.23 3 44.07** 8175.68 3 18.69**

Error 198.67 33 437.32 33

Age

0.00% 12490.36 2 4.41* 17109.36 2 5.52**

Error 2874.39 33 3100.49 33

0.04% 25551.80 2 8.66** 32419.92 2 7.76**

Error 2951.74 33 4177.24 33

0.027% 12563.01 2 4.24* 14895.92 2 4.25*

Error 2959.98 33 3502.63 33

0.014% 14866.67 2 4.03* 14639.67 2 4.23*

Error 3689.32 33 3463.87 33

* Significance level p_<.05

** Significance level p.<.01
350

300

250

200

150

100

.00% .040% .027%

Alcohol levels

Age groups

•-Younger »Middle *Older

.014%

Figure 1. Average combined needle tracking error under 1.0 ft L illumination without the secondary task at each of the

pre- and post- drinking sessions by age group

.00% .040% .027%

Alcohol levels

Age groups

• Younger »Middle -frOlder

.014%

Figure 2. Average combined needle tracking error under 1.0 ft L illumination with the secondary task at each of the

pre- and post- drinking sessions by age group.
significant differences for the older subjects only.

Additional posthoc tests yielded significantly poorer

performance for the 0.04% session when compared

with all other sessions (see Figure 1).

The age variable with the secondary task, when

tested for simple effects, demonstrated statistically

significant differences at all pre- and post- drinking

sessions. This was accounted for by statistically significant mean differences between the younger and

older subjects for all sessions. The session variable

with the secondary task was tested for simple effects,

and revealed statistical significance only for the older

age subjects. Further posthoc analysis yielded a significant mean difference between the 04% level (poorest performance) and all other pre- and post- drinking

sessions (see Figure 2).

Table 4. MANOVA source ofvariance table for averaged

combined needle error under 0.1 ft L. illumination.

Secondary Task

Absen Present

Measure MS df F MS df

i Main Effects

Age 59308.65 2 5.56* 88508.89 2

Between Error 10658.54 33 19643.13 33

Session 6933.35 3 11.70** 6568.90 3

WithinError 592.43 99

Interaction Effect

615.20 99

Age X Session 2054.39 6 3.47* 1632.78

2.65*

Within Error 592.43 99

Simple Effects

615.20 99

Session

Younger 4575.32 3 4.57** 1933.10 3

Error 1002.00 33 1078.87 33

Middle 4128.24 3 2.30 1968.77 3

Error 1791.55 33 2032.90 33

Older 5044.60 3 6.19** 3676.13 3

Error 814.82 33 612.37 33

Age

0.00% 16815.30 2 3.11 20563.02 2

Error 2874.39 33 3100.49 33

0.04% 34875.25 2 4.72* 4965.84 2

Error 7395.02 33 5906.00 33

0.027% 25912.02 2 3.94* 28025.67 2

Error 6568.69 33 6458.34 33

0.014% 32582.72 2 6.57** 18039.40 2

Error 4958.64 33 6037.01 33

4.50*

10.68**

1.79

.97

6.00**

4.14**

3.90**

4.34*

2.99*

* Significance level p_< 05

** Significance level p< .01
350

300

250

200

150

100

.00% .040% .027%

Alcohol levels

Age groups

Younger *Middle voider

.014%

Figure 3. Average combined needle tracking error under 0.1 ft L illumination without the secondary task at each of the

pre- and post- drinking sessions by age group.

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

.00% .040% .027% .014%

Alcohol levels

Age groups

Younger »Middle voider

Figure 4. Average combined needle tracking error under 0.1 ft L illumination with the secondary task at each of the

pre- post- drinking sessions by age group.
Table 5. Means and standard deviations for vertical needle tracking error under the 1.0 ft L.

illumination condition at each ofthe pre- and post-drinking sessions.

Session

Measure Group 0.000% 0.040%

Without

0.027%

secondary task

0.014%

Y M 114.42 136.17 110.08 104.33

SD 46.12 65.48 36.84 37.45

Vertical Errors M M 145.42 161.08 137.00 139.25

SD 75.74 66.59 59.74 77.97

O M 164.17 228.67 163.50 162.58

SD 66.34 59.85 61.96 58.90

With secondary task

Y M 114.58 140.50 114.83 106.83

SD 37.14 69.49 46.63 29.41

Vertical Errors M M 150.83 161.50 146.41 127.33

SD 72.81 63.52 60.84 64.61

O M 178.08 244.00 173.42 179.08

SD 78.55 93.93 70.19 73.25

Table 6. Means and standard deviations for vertical needle tracking error under the 0.1 ft L.

illumination condition at each ofthe pre- and post- drinking sessions.

Measure Group 0.000% 0.040% 0.027% 0.014%

Without secondary task

Y M 211.17 206.42 185.58 166.00

SD 86.89 91.40 92.48 64.90

Vertical Errors M M 247.75 273.33 241.91 225.42

SD 95.27 118.03 101.94 95.72

O M 272.25 328.92 256.92 256.75

SD 87.85 120.03 91.83 79.69

With secondary task

Y M 190.17 201.75 185.17 174.92

SD 80.44 66.28 82.28 77.76

Vertical Errors M M 264.25 249.17 227.42 213.58

SD 101.68 100.54 83.62 84.49

O M 256.08 294.83 265.08 244.50

SD 80.09 85.04 85.37 81.95

10
0.1 ft L. level. Comparing the combined needle

error profiles for the 0.1 ft L. illumination condition,

depicted in Figures 3 and 4, an interaction between

the age and session variables is suggested both with

and without the secondary task. This illumination

condition yielded significant main effects for the

variables age and session, and a statistically significant

interaction effect for the same variables, both with

and without the secondary task, as listed in Table 4.

Simple effects test without the secondary task for

the age variable yielded statistically significant age

differences at all of the post-drinking levels. The

Honestly Significant Differences test revealed statistically significant mean performance differences favoring the younger over the older subjects at all

post-drinking levels.

Simple effects tests performed for the session variable showed statistically significant sessions effects for

both the younger and older age groups. However,

further HSD posthoc analysis revealed no significant

mean differences for either age groups at any individual session.

Simple effects tests performed for the age variable

with the secondary task present revealed statistically

significant age differences at all pre- and post- drinking levels. Mean differences favored the younger over

the middle and older age subjects at all pre- and postdrinking levels.

Simple effects tests for the sessions variable yielded

statistically significant differences in the older age

group. Further HSD posthoc analysis revealed statistically significant mean differences between the 0.04%

level (poorest performance) and all other pre- and

post- drinking levels

Vertical Needle Errors

Cell means and standard deviations for vertical

needle errors under both illumination conditions are

listed in Tables 5 and 6. Comparisons ofthe pre- and

post- drinking sessions for 1.0 ft L illumination means,

as depicted in Figure 5, suggest an age by alcohol

interaction.

1.0 ft L. level. As seen in Table 7, statistically

significant main effects for both age and session and

an age by session interaction were revealed under 1.0

ft L. illumination without the secondary task. Simple

effects tests yielded statistically significant age differences for the .04% alcohol level, whereas all other

sessions showed no statistically significant age effects.

HSD post hoc analysis yielded statistically significant

mean performance differences favoring both the

younger and middle age groups over the older age

group (see Figure 5). Although the younger and middleage groups did not differ in average vertical needle

tracking error under the 1.0 ft L. illumination conditions, in the 8 groups of sessions (2 tasks by 4 sessions), errors increased consistently with increasing

age in all cases; simple effects tests showed a statistically significant sessions effect in the older age group.

HSD post hoc tests revealed a statistically significant

increase in error at the 0.04% alcohol level when

compared to all other pre- and post- drinking alcohol

level means for the older age group. While Figures 5

and 6 reveal that the average tracking error scores at

the .04% alcohol level for each group were above the

respective pre-drinking level, the older age group

exhibited the greatest change in performance and

accounted for the age by alcohol interaction effect.

As seen in Table 7, the MANOVA results for the

1.0 ft L. illumination condition plus the secondary

task are consistent with results obtained in the absence

of the secondary task, with statistically significant

main effects on both age and session and an age by

session interaction. Simple effects tests yielded statistically significant age effects at both the 0.04% and

0.014% alcohol levels. At the 0.04% alcohol level,

HSD posthoc analysis showed statistically significant

mean performance differences favoring both the

younger and middle age groups over the older group.

At the 0.014% alcohol level, HSD post hoc analysis

yielded statistically significant mean performance differences only between the younger and older age

group means (see Figure 5).

Simple effect tests indicated statistically significant

session effects for both the middle and older age

groups. HSD post hoc tests showed statistically significant increases in error at the 0.04% level when

compared to all other pre- and post- drinking session

means for the older age group. However, post hoc

analysis failed to reveal any statistically significant mean

differences across pre- and post- drinking alcohol levels

for the middle age group. The older age group means at

11
.00% .040% .027% .014%

Alcohol levels

Age groups

Younger *Middle *•Older

Figure 6. Vertical needle tracking error under 1.0 ft L illumination without the secondary task at each of the pre- and

post- drinking sessions by age group.

.00% .040% .027% .014%

Alcohol levels

Age groups

Younger «-Middle voider

Figure 6. Vertical needle tracking error under 1.0 ft L illumination with the secondary task at each of the pre- and postdrinHng sessions by age group.

12
the 0.04% level accounted for most ofthe age by sessions

interaction effect under 1.0 ft L. illumination with the

secondary task.

0.1 ft L. level. Cell means and standard deviations for

vertical needle tracking errors under 0.1 ft L. illumination were presented in Table 6. Figures 7 and 8 depictthe

pre- and post- drinking changes in tracking errors under

the 0.1 ft L. illumination condition both with and

without the secondary task.

MANOVA results for vertical needle tracking error

under 0.1 ft L. illumination without the secondary

task, as displayed in Table 8, yielded statistically

significant age and session main effects. However, no

age by session interaction was shown.

Simple effects tests conducted on the age variable

indicated statistically significant effects at the 0.04%

and 0.014% alcohol level. HSD posthoc analysis

Table 7. MANOVA source ofvariance table for vertical needle error under 1.0 ft L. illumination.

Secondary Task

Absent Present

Measure MS df F MS df F

Main Effects

Age 48432.55 2 3.95* 68095.36 2 4.78*

Between Error 12273.67 33 14254.61 33

Session 12814.43 3 15.45** 13991.90 3 14.02**

Within Error 829.46 99

Interaction Effect

997.98 99

Age X Session 1835.61 6 2.21* 2318.39 6 2.32*

Within Error 829.46 99

Simple Effects

997.98 99

Session

Younger 2320.28 3 2.07 2588.02 3 2.55

Error 1121.28 33 1014.78 33

Middle 1387.64 3 2.28 2444.58 3 3.85*

Error 608.35 33 634.70 33

Older 12777.74 3 16.84** 13596.08 3 10.11**

Error 758.74 33 1344.47 33

Age

0.00% 7575.25 2 1.85 12177.75 2 2.84

Error 4088.47 33 4283.50 33

0.04% 27498.19 2 6.70** 35919.00 2 6.09**

Error 4101.19 33 5895.88 33

0.027% 8561.58 2 2.93 10317.03 2 2.86

Error 2921.90 33 3600.95 33

0.014% 10313.36 2 2.82 16636.75 2 4.80*

Error 3650.48 33 3468.22 33

* Significance level p < .05

** Significance level p < .01

13
350

300

250

200

150

100

.00% .040% .027% .014%

Alcohol Level

Age group

Younger »Middle voider

Figure7. Vertical needle tracking error under 0.1 ttLHIurrtnatton without tteseco^

post-drinking sessions by age group.

350

300

250

?

'S

200

.00% .040% .027% .014%

Alcohol levels

Age groups

»•Younger »Middle »Older

Figures. Vertical needle tracking error under 0.1 nLHIumir^wiv^trwsetxxKtorytaskateachoftnepre-ajidpostdrWdng sessions by age group.

14
showed statistically significant mean performance differences favoring younger over the older age group for

both sessions. -

Simple effects analysis of pre- and post drinking

sessions revealed statistically significant effects for the

younger and older age groups. However, due to within

subject variability, HSD posthoc analysis failed to

detect any significant mean session differences for

either the younger or older age group means (see

Figure 7). It is noteworthy that for the younger and

middle age groups, the highest error scores were

recorded during the 0.04% session.

As shown in Table 8, the MANOVA results for

vertical needle tracking error under 0.1 ft L. illumination

with the secondary task showed significant main effects

for both age and session. However, no significant age

by session interaction was detected. Simple effects

analysis revealed significant sessions effects at the

Table 8. MANOVA source ofvariance table for vertical needle error under 0.1 ft L. illumination.

Secondary Condition

Absent Present

Measure MS df F MS df F

Main Effects

Age 91768.59 2 3.10* 73699.21 2 3.10*

Between Error 29616.36 33 23722.97 33

Session 19197.73 3 8.96** 9223.28 3 5.63**

Within Error 2143.20 99

Interaction Effect

1638.05 99

Age X Session 2395.76 6 1.12 1954.69 6 1.19

Within Error 2143.20 99

Simple Effects

1638.05 99

Session

Younger 5168.14 3 3.78* 1491.83 3 1.16

Error 1365.79 33 1286.80 33

Middle 4742.58 3 2.05 6081.93 3 2.65

Error 2308.65 33 2294.76 33

Older 14078.53 3 5.11** 5558.92 3 4.17*

Error 2755.15 33 1332.58 33

Age

0.00% 11339.53 2 1.39 19800.08 2 2.56

Error 8114.79 33 7741.42 33

0.04% 45147.19 2 3.69* 25996.58 2 3.58**

Error 12230.08 33 7244.41 33

0.027% 16973.78 2 1.86 19181.03 2 2.73

Error 9126.43 33 7017.26 33

0.014% 25495.36 2 3.87* 14585.58 2 2.19

Error 6574.94 33 6634.02 33

Significance level p < .05

Significance level p < .01

15
Table 9. Means and standard deviations for horizontal needle tracking error under the

illumination condition at each ofthe pre- and post-drinking sessions.

1.0 ft L.

Session

Measure G oup 0.000% 0.040%

Without

0.027%

secondary task

0.014%

Y M 89.67 109.08 87.00 82.50

SD 40.59 40.25 28.55 22.24

Horizontal Errors M M 140.50 145.41 158.08 168.50

SD 112.80 72.27 133.08 143.06

O M 167.25 198.00 155.58 147.17

SD 88.08 84.76 84.50 54.83

With secondary task

Y M 93.58 101.33 89.08 86.92

SD 30.10 44.34 30.97 44.34

Horizontal Errors M M 141.83 145.58 156.58 155.50

SD 115.58 75.21 148.61 146.29

O M 180.75 201.42 166.83 137.50

SD 99.60 88.43 88.11 70.73

Table 10. Means and standard deviations for horizontal needle tracking error under the

illumination condition at each ofthe pre- and post- drinking sessions.

0.1 ft L.

Session

Measure Group 0.000% 0.040% 0.027% 0.014%

Without secondary task

Y M 162.17 174.17 148.92 130.00

SD 68.37 67.96 66.70 46.77

Horizontal Errors M M 220.50 245.25 219.17 203.50

SD 86.14 83.79 131.31 122.43

O M 248.83 264.17 258.75 244.75

SD 77.07 83.06 103.91 83.38

With secondary task

Y M 166.83 179.50 153.50 147.17

SD 83.25 62.68 70.25 59.32

Horizontal Errors M M 214.83 241.17 227.25 219.42

SD 86.57 117.37 148.83 157.33

O M 258.83 259.75 265.50 265.50

SD 87.10 83.14 106.21 92.36

0.04% alcohol level. HSD posthoc tests showed significant mean performance differences favoring the

younger over the older age group, similar to that

obtained without the secondary task.

Simple effects tests showed significant session effects for the older age group. However, due to within

subject variability, HSD posthoc tests failed to detect

any significant mean differences between sessions (see

16
Figure 8), although the highest error scores were

detected for both the older and younger groups,

during the 0.04% session.

Horizontal needle errors

Error measurements forthe horizontal needle alone,

when analyzed using a MANOVA, yielded no significant results for any of the comparisons (i.e., neither

1.0 or 0.1 ft L. illumination, with or without the

secondary task). Since no significant main effects were

obtained, no further analysis was performed on the

horizontal error measurements. Cell means and standard deviations are listed in Tables 9 and 10. In the 16

groups ofsessions (2 levels ofillumination by 2 tasks

by 4 sessions), error consistently increased with increasing age in 13 cases. The younger age group

consistentlyevidenced lower mean tracking errorscores

and less variability in performance than either the

middle or older age groups. Mean tracking error

scores for the older subjects were also generally higher

than those of the middle age subjects. Horizontal

error means reached their peak at the 0.04% BrAC

level in 9 of 12 cases (4 sessions by 3 age groups),

which, although not statistically significant, suggests

an alcohol effect trend in the direction similar to that

obtained for the vertical needle. Despite the lack of

statistical significance for these measures, the trends

in the data, with respect to the main effects ofsession

and age, were consistent with those evident for the

vertical needle.

Secondary Task

Tables 11 and 12 display the complete cell means

and standard deviations for secondary task measures.

The difference in group means was less than 1 for all

sessions on both hits and false alarms. No statistically

significant results were evident in the MANOVA.

DISCUSSION

Tracking Performance. The present study introduced an additional (i.e., glide slope) needle to the

tracking task used in previous studies in this laboratory (Collins, Schroeder, Gilson & Guedry, 1971;

Gilson, Schroeder, Collins & Guedry, 1971;

Schroeder, 1971; Schroeder, Gilson, Collins, &

Guedry, 1972). The subjects were free to choose a

strategy as to how they would attend to the simultaneously moving needles. Subjects' performance errors

seemed to indicate that they alternated attention

between the needles. Analyses were performed on

combined needle errors and on individual needle

errors.

The 0.1 ft L. illumination condition appeared to

present a significant challenge for subjects in this

study, especially those in the middle and older age

groups. This was the only condition to evidence a

significant session and age interaction for the averaged combined needle errors. When investigating

vertical needle error, the increase in error rates and

variability associated with the task under these conditions tended to reduce the potential significance of

any findings. Several subjects reported that the horizontal needle was easier to see and indicated that they

had difficulty tracking the vertical needle, perhaps

due to acceleration-induced ocular nystagmus in that

plane of motion.

The influence ofthe secondary task appeared to be

limited. Subjects demonstrated slightly higher average tracking errors when asked simultaneously to

track and perform the secondary task. However, there

was little evidence that alcohol had a more profound

effect when workload was increased in this manner. It

may be that the auditory task was sufficiently distinct

with regard to the basic eye-hand coordination task,

or that accuracy on the secondary task could be

maintained at the expense ofspeed ofresponse. Since

our measures for the secondary task all involved simply the detection of the repeated number string, we

are unable to determine if any response slowing had

occurred.

Age. Combined needle tracking errors demonstrated differences in the performance rate between

the younger and older age groups in all pre- and postdrinking sessions. Younger age subjects performed

better than the middle age group at all pre- and post

drinking sessions under the low illumination level

condition with the secondary task.

Separate analyses were conducted on the individual

needle errors. The vertical needle errors yielded statistically significant results. Vertical needle error outcomes are also supportive of findings by Collins and

17
Table 11. Means and standard deviations for hits and false alarms on secondary task under the 1.0

ft L. illumination condition at each ofthe pre- and post- drinking sessions by age group.

Measure Group

Hits

False Alarms

Y M

SD

M M

SD

O M

SD

Y M

SD

M M

SD

O M

SD

Alcohol Condition

0.000% 0.040% 0.027%

10.50

1.38

10.50

2.02

10.83

1.34

.33

.65

.17

.40

.83

1.19

10.50

1.51

10.25

1.76

10.25

1.76

.58

.79

.50

1.00

.33

.78

10.83

1.75

10.00

2.34

10.75

1.38

.50

.67

.67

1.03

.58

.90

0.014%

10.58

1.44

10.67

1.92

10.83

1.27

.67

1.07

.33

.88

.83

1.40

Table 12. Means and standard deviations for hits and false alarms on secondary task under the 0.1

ft L. illumination condition at each ofthe pre- and post- drinking sessions by age group.

Measure Group

Alcohol Condition

0.000% 0.040% 0.027% 0.014%

Hits

False Alarms

Y M

SD

M M

SD

O M

SD

Y M

SD

M M

SD

O M

SD

10.57

.77

9.75

1.91

10.17

1.80

.83

.71

.50

.80

1.33

1.61

10.25

1.71

10.50

9.92

10.08

1.83

1.00

1.04

.42

.90

.58

.79

10.08

1.44

9.92

2.71

10.50

1.68

.92

1.08

.42

.90

1.00

1.35

11.00

.95

10.50

1.68

11.33

.78

.67

.65

.33

.49

.33

.49

Mertens (1988) and Linnoila, et al., (1980), indicating that there are age-related differences in the effects

ofalcohol on performance. While there was evidence of

an alcohol effect on performance ofeach ofthe three age

groups (younger, middle, and older), the effects associated with vertical needle tracking were more prominent

for oldersubjects. Differences in the effects ofalcohol on

performance as a function of age were evident under

both illumination conditions. Although no significant

findings were obtained on the horizontal needle errors,

the trend ofthe results was in the same direction as that

obtained for the vertical needle.

18
Alcohol. These data support previous research

(Collins et al., 1971; Gilson and Guedry, 1971; and

Gilson,etal., 1971) in demonstrating that compensatory tracking performance during motion is impaired

at 0.04% blood alcohol levels. The current findings

were evidenced on averaged combined needle errors

under the 0.1 illumination condition with the secondary task, and under both the 1.0 and 0.1 ft L.

illumination conditions both with and without the

secondary task for vertical needle errors. The results

failed to support a previous finding (Gilson et al.,

1971) of tracking performance impairment at blood

alcohol levels below 0.04%.

The alcohol effect for the averaged combined needle

errors was demonstrated by older age subjects, under the

0.1 ft L. illumination level with the secondary task, and

at the highest BrAC level, 0.04%, in the study. An

alcohol effect on the same task was demonstrated generally by the youngersubj ects; however, theirwithin group

variability eliminated any statistically significant mean

differences. This may suggest that at .04% BrAC the

performance of individuals within the same age group

may vary to the point that potential alcohol effects are

obscured in group data. These alcohol related findings

were similar under the 1.0 ft L. illumination condition,

in that significant alcohol effects were found at the

0.04% level involving the older subjects, but only with

the secondary task present. Moreover, although not

statistically significant, the poorest performance for the

younger and middle age groups also occurred during the

0.04% session in all but one case.

Although we did not obtain eye movement measures

of alcohol related changes in the nystagmus associated

with the angular motion, performance outcomes for

vertical needle errors are supportive of the role of increased nystagmus, which occurs in response to angular

motion following alcohol consumption. This was inferred from the findings that, while there was a significant increase in compensatory tracking errors associated

with deviations ofthe vertical needle on the instrument,

tracking errors associatedwith deviations ofthe horizontal needle did not demonstrate significant impairment.

However, an alcohol trend was evident on horizontal

needle outcomes in that mean performance errors on the

0.04% post-drinking session were consistendy above the

respective pre-drinking level.

Age by alcohol interaction. An age by alcohol

interaction was present in four of the eight cases

considered for combined and vertical needle tracking.

In three of those cases, (all related to vertical needle

error), no age effects were present for the pre-drinking

session. All cases where an age by alcohol interaction

was present, were accounted for by the 0.04% alcohol

level and the older age group. The 0.04% alcohollevel

had more of an effect on performance in older age

subjects, when compared to middle age or younger

subjects.

Summary. This study demonstrated statistically

significant main effects of age and alcohol. Older

subjects performed more poorly than younger or

middle age group subjects on the combined localizer/

glide slope tracking; the 0.04% alcohol level session

was found to be the most difficult for all subjects,

particularly older subjects. Vertical needle errors

yielded similar statistically significant main effects

and an interaction effect, with and without the secondary task under 1.0 ft L. illumination conditions,

when instrument needle movement was in the plane

ofthe horizontal eye movements (vertical needle), but

not when needle movement occurred at a 90 degree

angle to the eye movement (horizontal needle). While

eye movement measures were not gathered in this

study, in earlier reports (Gilson and Guedry, 1971;

Gilson et al., 1971) angular motion following alcohol

ingestion resulted in an increase in horizontal eye

movements (nystagmus) that increased blurring of

the instrument, resulting in a degradation in tracking

performance. It seems reasonable to infer that the

same mechanism was present in this study and played

a significant role in the increased tracking error. The

presence of a secondary task slightly strengthened the

effect seen; however, it was statistically significant

only when needle errors were combined under the 0.1

ft L. illumination condition. The number oftracking

errors increased with the subjects' age and BrAC

levels. The older age group at the 0.04% level accounted for most of the age and sessions effects. For

subjects in these three groups, there was little evidence

of performance decrement associated with BrACs

below 0.04%.

19
REFERENCES

Billings, C. E., Demosthenes, T., White, T. R., &

O'Hara, D. B. (1991). Effects of alcohol on pilot

performance in simulated flight. Aviation, Space,

andEnvironmental Medicine. 62, 233-5.

Billings, C. E., Wick, R. L., Gerke, R. J., and Chase, R.

C. (1972). The effects of alcohol on pilot performance during instrument flight. Technical Report

DOT/FAA/AM-72/4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office ofAviation Medicine.

Cahalan, D., Cisin, I. H., & Crossley, H. M. (1967).

American Drinking Practices: A National Survey

of Behavior and Attitudes Related to Alcoholic

Beverages. Report No. 3. Washington, DC: Social

Research Group, The George Washington University.

Canfield, D. V., Kupiec, T. C, and Huffine, E. F.

(1992). Postmortem alcohol production in fatal

aircraft accidents. Technical Report DOT/FAA/

AM-92/24. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office ofAviation Medicine.

Collins, W. K, and Mertens, H. W. (1991). Age, alcohol, and simulated altitude: Effects on performance and breathalyzer scores. Aviation, Space,

andEnvironmentalMedicine. 62(3) 236-40

Collins, W.E., Schroeder, DJ., Gilson, R. D., & Guedry,

F. E. (1971). Effects ofalcohol ingestion on tracking performance during angular acceleration. Journal of Applied Psychology. 51(6), 559-63.

Connors, G. J., and Maisto, S. A. (1980). Effects of

alcohol, instruction and consumption rate on motor

performance. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 41:

509-17.

Dubowski, K. M. (1985). Absorption, distribution and

elimination of alcohol: Highway safety aspects.

Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Supplement). K), 98-

108.

Gilson, R. D., Schroeder, D. J., Collins, W. E., Guedry,

F. E. (1971). Effects of different alcohol dosages

and display illumination on tracking performance

during vestibular stimulation. Aerospace Medicine.

42(6), 656-60.

Holloway, F. A. (1994). low-dose alcohol effects on

human behavior and performance: An update on

post 1984 studies. Technical Report DOT/FAA/

AM-94/24. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office ofAviation Medicine.

Lentz, S. K., and Rundell, O. H. (1976). Sustained

control ofblood alcohol levels. Alcohol Technical

Reports. 5(2), 33-36.

Linnoila, M., Erwin, C, Ramm, D., and Cleveland, W.

(1980). Effects ofage and alcohol on psychomotor

performance ofmen. Journal of Studies on Alcohol

41, 488-94.

Morrow, D., Leirer, V., and Yesavage, J. (1990). The

influence ofalcohol and aging on radio communication during flight. Aviation, Space, andEnvironmental Medicine. 61, 12-20.

Morrow, D., Yesavage, J., Leirer, V., Dolhert, N., Taylor,J., & Tinklemberg, J. (1993). The time course

of alcohol impairment of general aviation pilot

performance in a Frasca 141 simulator. Aviation,

Space, andEnvironmentalMedicine. 64, 697-705.

Moskowitz, H. and Robinson, CD., (1988). Effects of

low doses of alcohol on driving-related skills: A

review of the evidence. DOT National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration Technical Report,

DOT HS 807 280.

Ross, L. E. (1988). Alcohol: Is the new limit too much?

Aviation Safety. 8(3), 1-6.

Ross, L. E., & Mundt, J. C. (1986). Effects of a low

blood alcohollevel on pilot performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society — 30th Annual Meeting. 1182-6.

Schroeder, D. J. (1971). Influence ofalcohol on vestibular responses to angular acceleration. Aerospace

Medicine. 42, 959-70.

Schroeder, D. J. (1972). Some effects of alcohol on

nystagmus and "vertigo" during caloric and optokinetic stimulation. Annals ofOtology, Rhinology

and Laryngology. 81> 218-29.

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using

Multivariate Statistics, 2nd Ed. NY: Harper &

Row.

20

&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1*95 - 660-067/00079