Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| R01AA025337 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Self-medication of pain with alcohol is a common, yet risky, behavior. Evidence suggests family history of alcoholism may affect the degree to which alcohol use relieves pain, but the independent contributions of expectation and conditioning have not been previously studied. Interactive effects of sex and family history are also currently unclear. This project addresses this gap in knowledge and will inform further research and clinical/translational efforts for reducing risk associated with these behaviors.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive | Experimental | People reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems. |
|
| Family History Negative | Experimental | People who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol | Drug | A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Heat Pain Threshold | Temperature of heat stimulus applied to the foot at which participant reports pain. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings anchored from "no pain at all"/"not at all unpleasant" to "most intense/unpleasant imaginable" will be collected. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Heat Pain Tolerance | Temperature of heat stimulus applied to the foot at which participant no longer tolerates pain. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings anchored from "no pain at all"/"not at all unpleasant" to "most intense/unpleasant imaginable" will be collected. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Participant perception of pain at a temperature producing a pain rating of approximately 5 out of 10 at baseline. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity ratings ranging from 0-100 and anchored from "no pain at all" to "most intense imaginable" will be collected. Higher values reflect ratings of more intense pain. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Perceived Pain Relief | Rating of relief from pain associated with consumption of the study beverage. This is a VAS (visual analogue scale) assessing perceived pain relief ranging from 0-100 and anchored from "No relief at all" to "Most profound relief imaginable". Higher scores reflect greater perception of pain relief. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Pain-related activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
- Consume at least 1 drink/month over the past 6 months
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jeff Boissoneault, PhD | Assistant Professor | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center for Pain Research and Behavioral Health at UF Health | Gainesville | Florida | 32610 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31891860 | Result | Boissoneault J, Stennett B, Robinson ME. Acute alcohol intake alters resting state functional connectivity of nucleus accumbens with pain-related corticolimbic structures. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020 Feb 1;207:107811. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107811. Epub 2019 Dec 24. | |
| 32472620 | Result | Sevel L, Stennett B, Schneider V 2nd, Bush N, Nixon SJ, Robinson M, Boissoneault J. Acute Alcohol Intake Produces Widespread Decreases in Cortical Resting Signal Variability in Healthy Social Drinkers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2020 Jul;44(7):1410-1419. doi: 10.1111/acer.14381. Epub 2020 Jun 18. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Family History Positive Men: Ethanol First, Then Placebo | Men with at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems, randomized to received ethanol first, followed by placebo. The first laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours, followed by a minimum 48 hour gap, and the second laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| FG001 | Family History Negative Men: Ethanol First, Then Placebo | Men without a parent with a history of alcohol problems, randomized to received ethanol first, followed by placebo. The first laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours, followed by a minimum 48 hour gap, and the second laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| FG002 | Family History Positive Men: Placebo First, Then Ethanol | Men with at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems, randomized to received placebo first, followed by ethanol. The first laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours, followed by a minimum 48 hour gap, and the second laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| FG003 | Family History Negative Men: Placebo First, Then Ethanol | Men without a parent with a history of alcohol problems, randomized to received placebo first, followed by ethanol. The first laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours, followed by a minimum 48 hour gap, and the second laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| FG004 | Family History Positive Women: Ethanol First, Then Placebo | Women with at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems, randomized to received ethanol first, followed by placebo. The first laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours, followed by a minimum 48 hour gap, and the second laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| FG005 | Family History Negative Women: Ethanol First, Then Placebo | Women without a parent with a history of alcohol problems, randomized to received ethanol first, followed by placebo. The first laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours, followed by a minimum 48 hour gap, and the second laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| FG006 | Family History Positive Women: Placebo First, Then Ethanol | Women with at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems, randomized to received placebo first, followed by ethanol. The first laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours, followed by a minimum 48 hour gap, and the second laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| FG007 | Family History Negative Women: Placebo First, Then | Women without a parent with a history of alcohol problems, randomized to received placebo first, followed by ethanol. The first laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours, followed by a minimum 48 hour gap, and the second laboratory session lasted 4-8 hours. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Family History Positive Men | Men reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Heat Pain Threshold | Temperature of heat stimulus applied to the foot at which participant reports pain. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings anchored from "no pain at all"/"not at all unpleasant" to "most intense/unpleasant imaginable" will be collected. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | degrees celsius | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
Duration of study participation (4-8 hours per study session, with at least 48 hours separating each session)
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Family History Positive Men - Alcohol Condition | Men reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems who received a beverage containing alcohol (ethanol) during the laboratory session. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeff Boissoneault, PhD | University of Minnesota | 612-624-7357 | jboisson@umn.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP_ICF | Yes | Yes | Yes | Study Protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan, and Informed Consent Form | Apr 5, 2023 | Jun 20, 2024 | Prot_SAP_ICF_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D010146 | Pain |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009461 | Neurologic Manifestations |
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000431 | Ethanol |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000438 | Alcohols |
| D009930 | Organic Chemicals |
Not provided
Not provided
Participants will receive an active oral dose of alcohol or placebo in a counterbalanced manner.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Placebo | Other | A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
|
| Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Hypothalamus Activation | Pain-related activation in the hypothalamus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours |
| Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Pain-related activation in the medial prefrontal cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Pain-related activation in the nucleus accumbens associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Pain-related activation in the periaqueductal gray associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Pain-related activation in the anterior cingulate cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Amgydala Activation | Pain-related activation in the amygdala associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Hippocampus Activation | Pain-related activation in the hippocampus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Insula Activation | Pain-related activation in the insula associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Pain-related activation in the postcentral gyrus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| Thalamus Activation | Pain-related activation in the thalamus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
| BG001 |
| Family History Negative Men |
Men who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| BG002 | Family History Positive Women | Women reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| BG003 | Family History Negative Women | Women who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| BG004 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test | The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is a standardized assessment of drinking frequency and heaviness, as well as consequences associated with alcohol intake. Higher scores reflect heavier/more frequent drinking and more severe alcohol-related consequences. Items are summed to compute total score, which can range from 0-40. | Mean | Standard Deviation | total score |
|
| Quantity-Frequency Index | Mean | Standard Deviation | oz. absolute ethanol consumed per day |
|
| Max Quantity | Mean | Standard Deviation | oz. absolute ethanol |
|
| Expectancies for Alcohol Analgesia | The Expectancies of Alcohol Analgesia questionnaire assesses perceived likelihood that using alcohol will reduce pain or improve pain coping. The EAA as administered consists of five 0-100 visual analog scales, which are averaged for analyses. Higher scores represent strong expectancies that alcohol is an effective analgesic. | Mean | Standard Deviation | average score |
|
Men who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| OG002 | Family History Positive Women | Women reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
| OG003 | Family History Negative Women | Women who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. |
|
|
|
| Primary | Heat Pain Tolerance | Temperature of heat stimulus applied to the foot at which participant no longer tolerates pain. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings anchored from "no pain at all"/"not at all unpleasant" to "most intense/unpleasant imaginable" will be collected. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | degrees celsius | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Participant perception of pain at a temperature producing a pain rating of approximately 5 out of 10 at baseline. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity ratings ranging from 0-100 and anchored from "no pain at all" to "most intense imaginable" will be collected. Higher values reflect ratings of more intense pain. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | units on a VAS | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Perceived Pain Relief | Rating of relief from pain associated with consumption of the study beverage. This is a VAS (visual analogue scale) assessing perceived pain relief ranging from 0-100 and anchored from "No relief at all" to "Most profound relief imaginable". Higher scores reflect greater perception of pain relief. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | units on a VAS | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Pain-related activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Hypothalamus Activation | Pain-related activation in the hypothalamus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Pain-related activation in the medial prefrontal cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Pain-related activation in the nucleus accumbens associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Pain-related activation in the periaqueductal gray associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Pain-related activation in the anterior cingulate cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Amgydala Activation | Pain-related activation in the amygdala associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Hippocampus Activation | Pain-related activation in the hippocampus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Insula Activation | Pain-related activation in the insula associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Pain-related activation in the postcentral gyrus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Thalamus Activation | Pain-related activation in the thalamus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | beta weight | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 22 |
| 0 |
| 22 |
| 0 |
| 22 |
| EG001 | Family History Negative Men - Alcohol Condition | Men who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems who received a beverage containing alcohol (ethanol) during the laboratory session. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 |
| EG002 | Family History Positive Women - Alcohol Condition | Women reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems who received a beverage containing alcohol (ethanol) during the laboratory session. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 |
| EG003 | Family History Negative Women - Alcohol Condition | Women who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems who received a beverage containing alcohol (ethanol) during the laboratory session. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 0 | 42 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 42 |
| EG004 | Family History Positive Men - Placebo Condition | Men reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems who received a placebo beverage during the laboratory session. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 0 | 22 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 22 |
| EG005 | Family History Negative Men - Placebo Condition | Men who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems who received a placebo beverage during the laboratory session. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 |
| EG006 | Family History Positive Women - Placebo Condition | Women reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems who received a placebo beverage during the laboratory session. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 |
| EG007 | Family History Negative Women - Placebo Condition | Women who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems who received a placebo beverage during the laboratory session. Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL. Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 0 | 42 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 42 |
Not provided
Not provided
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,107) = 0.27 |
| .27 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = 0.15 | .70 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = 3.87 | .05 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = 5.18 | .03 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = 2.24 | .14 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = 17.25 | <.001 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,107) = 2.43 |
| .12 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = 1.36 | .25 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = 0.31 | .58 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = 0.02 | .90 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = .004 | .95 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,107) = 0.17 | .68 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,108) = 1.41 |
| .24 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,108) = 0.28 | .60 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,108) = 0.00 | .99 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,108) = 139.63 | <.001 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,108) = 0.04 | .84 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,108) = 0.30 | .59 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=0.69 |
| .41 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.74 | .39 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=1.54 | .22 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=3.64 | .06 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.000 | .99 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=2.88 | .09 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=0.84 |
| .36 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.84 | .36 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=1.93 | .17 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.36 | .55 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.63 | .43 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.96 | .33 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=0.02 |
| .88 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.34 | .56 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.02 | .90 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.59 | .45 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.04 | .85 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.22 | .64 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=2.62 |
| .11 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.76 | .39 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.02 | .89 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=6.72 | .01 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=3.15 | .08 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=3.71 | .06 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=2.84 |
| .10 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.47 | .49 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.000 | .99 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=2.29 | .13 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.05 | .82 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=6.09 | 0.02 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=0.000 |
| .99 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.05 | .83 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.10 | .75 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.25 | .62 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.01 | .92 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.76 | .39 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=1.20 |
| .28 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.28 | .60 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=4.48 | .04 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=1.37 | .25 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.01 | .89 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=1.28 | .26 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=3.00 |
| .09 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.10 | .76 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.09 | .77 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.41 | .52 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.007 | .93 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.64 | .42 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=1.23 |
| .27 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=3.66 | .06 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.13 | .73 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=4.04 | .047 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.001 | .97 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.05 | .82 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=0.29 |
| .59 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=3.41 | .07 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.26 | .61 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.05 | .82 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.23 | .63 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.36 | .55 | Superiority |
| Placebo Condition |
|
2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction. |
| ANOVA |
F(1,93)=2.17 |
| .14 |
| Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.32 | .69 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.92 | .34 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=1.16 | 0.29 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=0.004 | .95 | Superiority |
| 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex. | ANOVA | F(1,93)=2.65 | .11 | Superiority |