Literature DB >> 10867984

Effects of the nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine on inspection time.

J C Thompson1, C Stough, D Ames, C Ritchie, P J Nathan.   

Abstract

RATIONALE: Several lines of evidence suggest that nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAchRs) are involved in speed of information processing, and inspection time appears to be particularly sensitive to nicotinic manipulation.
OBJECTIVE: The present study sought to examine the effects of the nAchR antagonist mecamylamine on inspection time. Furthermore, the extent to which the anticholinesterase donepezil would reverse the effects of mecamylamine on inspection time was also examined.
METHODS: A double-blind, repeated measures design was employed. Subjects (n = 6) received placebo, mecamylamine (20 mg PO) or mecamylamine (20 mg PO) and donepezil (5 mg PO). Inspection time and physiological measures were then assessed.
RESULTS: The mecamylamine condition and the mecamylamine and donepezil condition were associated with an increase in heart rate, when compared to the placebo condition. There was a significant slowing of inspection time in the mecamylamine condition; compared to placebo, which was partly reversed by donepezil.
CONCLUSIONS: The slowing of inspection time following mecamylamine is consistent with the role of nAchRs in speed of information processing, and add to the evidence that IT may in part index nAchR system integrity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10867984     DOI: 10.1007/s002130000409

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)        ISSN: 0033-3158            Impact factor:   4.530


  9 in total

1.  Reversal of mecamylamine-induced effects in healthy subjects by nicotine receptor agonists: Cognitive and (electro) physiological responses.

Authors:  Ricardo Alvarez-Jimenez; Ellen P Hart; Samantha Prins; Marieke de Kam; Joop M A van Gerven; Adam F Cohen; Geert Jan Groeneveld
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Prompt but inefficient: nicotine differentially modulates discrete components of attention.

Authors:  Signe Vangkilde; Claus Bundesen; Jennifer T Coull
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 4.530

3.  An anti-nicotinic cognitive challenge model using mecamylamine in comparison with the anti-muscarinic cognitive challenge using scopolamine.

Authors:  Anne Catrien Baakman; Ricardo Alvarez-Jimenez; Robert Rissmann; Erica S Klaassen; Jasper Stevens; Sebastiaan C Goulooze; Jeroen C G den Burger; Eleonora L Swart; Joop M A van Gerven; Geert Jan Groeneveld
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2017-04-08       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 4.  Cell-specific modulation of plasticity and cortical state by cholinergic inputs to the visual cortex.

Authors:  Hiroki Sugihara; Naiyan Chen; Mriganka Sur
Journal:  J Physiol Paris       Date:  2016-11-10

5.  Cognitive performance and cholinergic transmission: influence of muscarinic and nicotinic receptor blockade.

Authors:  Bianca Voss; Renate Thienel; Martina Reske; Ute Habel; Tilo Kircher
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 5.270

Review 6.  Cholinesterase inhibitors used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: the relationship between pharmacological effects and clinical efficacy.

Authors:  David G Wilkinson; Paul T Francis; Elias Schwam; Jennifer Payne-Parrish
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.923

7.  Galantamine-induced improvements in cognitive function are not related to alterations in alpha(4)beta (2) nicotinic receptors in early Alzheimer's disease as measured in vivo by 2-[18F]fluoro-A-85380 PET.

Authors:  J R Ellis; P J Nathan; V L Villemagne; R S Mulligan; T Saunder; K Young; C L Smith; J Welch; M Woodward; K A Wesnes; G Savage; C C Rowe
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2008-10-24       Impact factor: 4.530

8.  Effects of pro-cholinergic treatment in patients suffering from spatial neglect.

Authors:  N Lucas; A Saj; S Schwartz; R Ptak; C Thomas; P Conne; R Leroy; S Pavin; K Diserens; Patrik Vuilleumier
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Visual processing speed in freezing and non-freezing Parkinson's disease patients.

Authors:  Mosaad Alhassan; Jeffery K Hovis; Quincy J Almeida
Journal:  Clin Park Relat Disord       Date:  2020-05-29
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.