RATIONALE: Working memory performance may be improved or decreased by amphetamine, depending on baseline working memory capacity and amphetamine dosage. This variable effect suggests an optimal range of monaminergic activity for working memory, either below or above which it is compromised. We directly tested this possibility with human participants by varying amphetamine dosage and measuring the efficiency of cortical processing in brain regions associated with working memory. OBJECTIVES: The modulation of cortical processing in a verbal working memory network by dextroamphetamine (D-amph) was examined using BOLD functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with healthy participants. The goal of the study was to test the hypothesis of an inverted U-shaped relationship between D-amph dose and processing efficiency of a verbal working memory system. METHODS: D-amph dosage was increased cumulatively every 2 h across four scanning sessions collected in a single day. The primary measure used for analyses in this study was the extent of activation in brain regions empirically defined as a working memory network. RESULTS: An inverted U-shaped relationship was observed between the amount of D-amph administered and working memory processing efficiency. This relationship was specific to brain areas functionally defined as working memory regions and to the encoding/maintenance phase (as opposed to the response phase) of the task. CONCLUSION: The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the neurochemical effects of amphetamine modulate the efficiency of a verbal working memory system. The effect of amphetamine on working memory in healthy individuals may provide insight regarding the working memory deficits seen in schizophrenia, given the overlap between neurochemical systems affected by amphetamine, and those disordered in schizophrenia.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Working memory performance may be improved or decreased by amphetamine, depending on baseline working memory capacity and amphetamine dosage. This variable effect suggests an optimal range of monaminergic activity for working memory, either below or above which it is compromised. We directly tested this possibility with humanparticipants by varying amphetamine dosage and measuring the efficiency of cortical processing in brain regions associated with working memory. OBJECTIVES: The modulation of cortical processing in a verbal working memory network by dextroamphetamine (D-amph) was examined using BOLD functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with healthy participants. The goal of the study was to test the hypothesis of an inverted U-shaped relationship between D-amph dose and processing efficiency of a verbal working memory system. METHODS:D-amph dosage was increased cumulatively every 2 h across four scanning sessions collected in a single day. The primary measure used for analyses in this study was the extent of activation in brain regions empirically defined as a working memory network. RESULTS: An inverted U-shaped relationship was observed between the amount of D-amph administered and working memory processing efficiency. This relationship was specific to brain areas functionally defined as working memory regions and to the encoding/maintenance phase (as opposed to the response phase) of the task. CONCLUSION: The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the neurochemical effects of amphetamine modulate the efficiency of a verbal working memory system. The effect of amphetamine on working memory in healthy individuals may provide insight regarding the working memory deficits seen in schizophrenia, given the overlap between neurochemical systems affected by amphetamine, and those disordered in schizophrenia.
Authors: M F Egan; T E Goldberg; B S Kolachana; J H Callicott; C M Mazzanti; R E Straub; D Goldman; D R Weinberger Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-05-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Venkata S Mattay; Terry E Goldberg; Francesco Fera; Ahmad R Hariri; Alessandro Tessitore; Michael F Egan; Bhaskar Kolachana; Joseph H Callicott; Daniel R Weinberger Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-04-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Christopher C Lapish; Emili Balaguer-Ballester; Jeremy K Seamans; Anthony G Phillips; Daniel Durstewitz Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Nora D Volkow; Gene-Jack Wang; Frank Telang; Joanna S Fowler; Jean Logan; Christopher Wong; Jim Ma; Kith Pradhan; Dardo Tomasi; Peter K Thanos; Sergi Ferré; Millard Jayne Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Paul B Fitzgerald; Anusha Srithiran; Jessica Benitez; Zafiris Z Daskalakis; Tom J Oxley; Jayashri Kulkarni; Gary F Egan Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Natalia del Campo; Tim D Fryer; Young T Hong; Rob Smith; Laurent Brichard; Julio Acosta-Cabronero; Samuel R Chamberlain; Roger Tait; David Izquierdo; Ralf Regenthal; Jonathan Dowson; John Suckling; Jean-Claude Baron; Franklin I Aigbirhio; Trevor W Robbins; Barbara J Sahakian; Ulrich Müller Journal: Brain Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 13.501