| Literature DB >> 12895276 |
Peter Gallagher1, Anna E Massey, Allan H Young, R Hamish McAllister-Williams.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive impairment is frequently described in a number of psychiatric disorders and may be a direct consequence of serotonergic dysfunction. As impairments in executive functions are some of the most frequently described, the purpose of this study was to examine the performance of normal volunteers on a range of executive tasks following a transient reduction of central serotonin (5-HT) levels using the method of acute tryptophan depletion (ATD).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2003 PMID: 12895276 PMCID: PMC184453 DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-3-10
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Descriptives and ANOVA results for all measures
| Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | Drink | Order | Drink × Order | |
| Categories completed | 5.5 | (1.4) | 5.7 | (0.8) | F = 0.019, P = 0.893 | F = 0.019, P = 0.893 | F = 3.161, P = 0.099 |
| Trials to complete 1st category | 12.0 | (4.9) | 13.6 | (4.6) | F = 0.996, P = 0.336 | F = 0.002, P = 0.966 | F = 0.183, P = 0.676 |
| Perseverative errors (%) | 9.2 | (4.4) | 9.1 | (3.2) | F = 0.112, P = 0.744 | F = 1.457, P = 0.249 | F = 4.712, P = 0.049 * |
| Non-perseverative errors (%) | 9.8 | (7.3) | 8.3 | (4.4) | F = 0.012, P = 0.887 | F = 0.549, P = 0.472 | F = 12.531, P = 0.004 *** |
| Conceptual level responses (%) | 76.8 | (16.1) | 79.5 | (9.7) | F = 0.004, P = 0.949 | F = 0.902, P = 0.359 | F = 7.947, P = 0.014 * |
| Correct | 43.2 | (9.2) | 44.2 | (9.4) | F = 0.166, P = 0.690 | F = 6.098, P = 0.028 * | F = 0.432, P = 0.522 |
| C (latency; seconds) | 54.1 | (5.5) | 54.1 | (8.9) | F = 0.006, P = 0.940 | F = 0.007, P = 0.934 | F = 0.149, P = 0.706 |
| CW (latency; seconds) | 114.0 | (16.7) | 112.7 | (14.8) | F = 0.049, P = 0.828 | F = 0.079, P = 0.783 | F = 11.560, P = 0.005 *** |
| Interference (CW – C) | 59.9 | (16.9) | 58.7 | (15.3) | F = 0.022, P = 0.883 | F = 0.056, P = 0.816 | F = 7.615, P = 0.016 * |
| Trails A (seconds) | 23.3 | (5.0) | 25.3 | (6.5) | F = 6.232, P = 0.027 * | F = 0.021, P = 0.886 | F = 8.680, P = 0.011 * |
| Trails B (seconds) | 49.9 | (10.4) | 48.4 | (9.4) | F = 0.109, P = 0.746 | F = 3.272, P = 0.094 | F = 1.999, P = 0.181 |
| Shift index (Trails B – A) | 26.7 | (11.0) | 23.1 | (7.4) | F = 1.601, P = 0.228 | F = 4.829, P = 0.047 * | F = 0.008, P = 0.928 |
| Alertness | 74.0 | (14.0) | 71.4 | (16.2) | F = 0.595, P = 0.454 | F = 0.905, P = 0.359 | F = 3.838, P = 0.072 |
| Contentedness | 83.4 | (7.5) | 86.5 | (7.8) | F = 2.372, P = 0.147 | F = 1.922, P = 0.189 | F = 1.298, P = 0.275 |
| Calmness | 82.8 | (12.2) | 81.6 | (16.4) | F = 0.014, P = 0.908 | F = 0.854, P = 0.372 | F = 0.570, P = 0.464 |
† degrees of freedom = 1,13 a Results confirmed non-parametrically; see main text.
Figure 1Drink by order interactions from the WCST Legend: A/C; Group receiving active first, control second. C/A; Group receiving control first, active second. †; Percentage (×101), nb. For this measure only, higher scores represent better performance.
Figure 2Drink by order interactions from the Stroop test
Figure 3Drink by order interaction from the Trails (A) test