Brian Stollery1, Leonie Christian. 1. School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK. Brian.Stollery@Bristol.ac.uk
Abstract
RATIONALE: An increasing number of studies suggest that glucose can enhance aspects of memory and the central methodology is the use of the glucose-placebo design. One critical issue therefore is separating the pharmacological effects of glucose from the expectancies created by consuming a drink that might contain glucose. OBJECTIVE: A modified balanced placebo design examined the role that expectancy and belief about the drink consumed has on the pharmacological changes observed following glucose consumption. METHOD: Ninety-three participants, allocated according to adrink (glucose, placebo) × message (told glucose, told nothing, told placebo) unrelated design, were administered tasks assessing immediate and delayed verbal free recall, spatial recognition and semantic verification. Each task has some evidence for hippocampus involvement, and variations in task difficulty were used to assess the idea that glucose effects are sensitive to task difficulty. RESULTS: While the messages biased drink judgements in the expected direction, judgements of drink content were at chance and glucose only enhanced delayed free recall. The subtle effects of the messages did not modify the glucose enhancement. However, believing glucose had been consumed showed an independent improvement in delayed free recall. There was no evidence that task complexity enhanced the glucose effect. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that expectancy effects are unlikely to be confused with glucose enhancements, but beliefs about consuming glucose can augment performance on delayed free recall. The discussion considers the hippocampus and complexity hypotheses of glucose's mode of action and proposes the routine collection of drink beliefs in future studies.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: An increasing number of studies suggest that glucose can enhance aspects of memory and the central methodology is the use of the glucose-placebo design. One critical issue therefore is separating the pharmacological effects of glucose from the expectancies created by consuming a drink that might contain glucose. OBJECTIVE: A modified balanced placebo design examined the role that expectancy and belief about the drink consumed has on the pharmacological changes observed following glucose consumption. METHOD: Ninety-three participants, allocated according to a drink (glucose, placebo) × message (told glucose, told nothing, told placebo) unrelated design, were administered tasks assessing immediate and delayed verbal free recall, spatial recognition and semantic verification. Each task has some evidence for hippocampus involvement, and variations in task difficulty were used to assess the idea that glucose effects are sensitive to task difficulty. RESULTS: While the messages biased drink judgements in the expected direction, judgements of drink content were at chance and glucose only enhanced delayed free recall. The subtle effects of the messages did not modify the glucose enhancement. However, believing glucose had been consumed showed an independent improvement in delayed free recall. There was no evidence that task complexity enhanced the glucose effect. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that expectancy effects are unlikely to be confused with glucose enhancements, but beliefs about consuming glucose can augment performance on delayed free recall. The discussion considers the hippocampus and complexity hypotheses of glucose's mode of action and proposes the routine collection of drink beliefs in future studies.
Authors: Morris Moscovitch; R Shayna Rosenbaum; Asaf Gilboa; Donna Rose Addis; Robyn Westmacott; Cheryl Grady; Mary Pat McAndrews; Brian Levine; Sandra Black; Gordon Winocur; Lynn Nadel Journal: J Anat Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.610
Authors: Mark Hamer; Louise Dye; E Siobhan Mitchell; Sophie Layé; Caroline Saunders; Neil Boyle; Jeroen Schuermans; John Sijben Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 5.614