Paper detail

Testing three models of cognitive stress effects: A psychopharmacological randomized controlled trial of acute stress and stress hormones across visual perception, response inhibition and cognitive flexibility

Acute stress alters cognitive performance, yet competing models make divergent predictions regarding the mechanisms, scope, and temporal dynamics of these effects. This large-scale randomized controlled trial tested predications from three influential stress-effect models using a broad cognitive task battery embedded within a psychopharmacological stress paradigm. Across 606 testing sessions, 303 healthy male participants completed both the Maastricht Acute Stress Test (MAST) and its non-stress control condition. To independently manipulate acute stress and stress hormone availability, participants were additionally randomized to receive atomoxetine (40 mg; to prolong norepinephrine availability), hydrocortisone (10 mg; to increase cortisol availability), or placebo. Cognitive performance was assessed over 80-minutes (post-stress) using tasks targeting visual perception (rapid serial visual presentation), response inhibition (stop-signal), and cognitive flexibility (dual and switch tasks). MAST exposure selectively impaired response inhibition, reflected in shorter stop-signal delays, lower probabilities of successful stopping and prolonged stop-signal reaction times, particularly during later testing phases (40-80 minutes post-stress). MAST exposure did not affect visual perception or task-switching performance but buffered time-related declines in processing efficiency at the expense of task prioritization in the dual task. Pharmacological manipulation of norepinephrine or cortisol availability was effective but did not moderate cognitive stress effects. Overall, this pattern of task-specific impairment alongside stabilized processing efficiency cannot be fully explained by any tested model, highlighting the need to refine existing models and adopt more integrative approaches to advance our mechanistic understanding of cognitive stress-effects in laboratory and real-world contexts.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.