Monique Ernst1, Tiffany Lago2, Andrew Davis2, Christian Grillon2. 1. Neurobiology of Fear and Anxiety, National Institute of Mental Health, 15K North Drive, Bldg 15K, MSC 2670, Bethesda, MD, 20892-2670, USA. ernstm@mail.nih.gov. 2. Neurobiology of Fear and Anxiety, National Institute of Mental Health, 15K North Drive, Bldg 15K, MSC 2670, Bethesda, MD, 20892-2670, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Research documents a reciprocal impact of anxiety on working memory (WM), although its strength and direction depend on factors like task difficulty. A better understanding of these factors may generate insights into cognitive mechanisms of action involved in anxiety, culminating into treatment implications. By blocking the physiological effects of anxiety, propranolol might also block anxiety interference on WM. Conversely, by improving task-directed attention, methylphenidate might reduce anxiety, or, alternatively, by improving cognitive efficiency and free up processing resources to compute anxiety. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the interplay between induced anxiety and WM, we pharmacologically manipulated either anxiety or cognition, using single doses of 40 mg propranolol (PRO), 20 mg methylphenidate (MPH), or placebo (PLA). In this double-blind parallel-group design study, 60 healthy volunteers (20/drug group) performed averbal WM task under three loads, 1-, 2- and 3-back, and in two conditions, threat of shock and safety. Startle electromyography (EMG) was used to measure anxiety. RESULTS: Findings were twofold: (1) MPH blocked anxiety interference only on the 3-back WM performance, while PRO or PLA had no effects on anxiety-WM interference, and (2) drugs had no effects on anxiety, but, after controlling for baseline anxiety, MPH enhanced anxiety-potentiated startle during the 3-back task. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support that MPH-related improvement of cognitive efficiency permits anxiety to be processed and expressed. In conclusion, MPH may be a useful tool to investigate the mechanisms of interaction between anxiety and WM, particularly those under catecholaminergic control.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Research documents a reciprocal impact of anxiety on working memory (WM), although its strength and direction depend on factors like task difficulty. A better understanding of these factors may generate insights into cognitive mechanisms of action involved in anxiety, culminating into treatment implications. By blocking the physiological effects of anxiety, propranolol might also block anxiety interference on WM. Conversely, by improving task-directed attention, methylphenidate might reduce anxiety, or, alternatively, by improving cognitive efficiency and free up processing resources to compute anxiety. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the interplay between induced anxiety and WM, we pharmacologically manipulated either anxiety or cognition, using single doses of 40 mg propranolol (PRO), 20 mg methylphenidate (MPH), or placebo (PLA). In this double-blind parallel-group design study, 60 healthy volunteers (20/drug group) performed a verbal WM task under three loads, 1-, 2- and 3-back, and in two conditions, threat of shock and safety. Startle electromyography (EMG) was used to measure anxiety. RESULTS: Findings were twofold: (1) MPH blocked anxiety interference only on the 3-back WM performance, while PRO or PLA had no effects on anxiety-WM interference, and (2) drugs had no effects on anxiety, but, after controlling for baseline anxiety, MPH enhanced anxiety-potentiated startle during the 3-back task. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support that MPH-related improvement of cognitive efficiency permits anxiety to be processed and expressed. In conclusion, MPH may be a useful tool to investigate the mechanisms of interaction between anxiety and WM, particularly those under catecholaminergic control.
Authors: Erno J Hermans; Hein J F van Marle; Lindsey Ossewaarde; Marloes J A G Henckens; Shaozheng Qin; Marlieke T R van Kesteren; Vincent C Schoots; Helena Cousijn; Mark Rijpkema; Robert Oostenveld; Guillén Fernández Journal: Science Date: 2011-11-25 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: N D Volkow; G Wang; J S Fowler; J Logan; M Gerasimov; L Maynard; Y Ding; S J Gatley; A Gifford; D Franceschi Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: John Beddington; Cary L Cooper; John Field; Usha Goswami; Felicia A Huppert; Rachel Jenkins; Hannah S Jones; Tom B L Kirkwood; Barbara J Sahakian; Sandy M Thomas Journal: Nature Date: 2008-10-23 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Katherine E Vytal; Brian R Cornwell; Allison M Letkiewicz; Nicole E Arkin; Christian Grillon Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Adam X Gorka; Tiffany R Lago; Nicholas Balderston; Salvatore Torrisi; Bari Fuchs; Christian Grillon; Monique Ernst Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2020-04-19 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Jennifer K MacCormack; Emma L Armstrong-Carter; Monica M Gaudier-Diaz; Samantha Meltzer-Brody; Erica K Sloan; Kristen A Lindquist; Keely A Muscatell Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2021 Nov-Dec 01 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Tiffany R Lago; Abigail Hsiung; Brooks P Leitner; Courtney J Duckworth; Nicholas L Balderston; Kong Y Chen; Christian Grillon; Monique Ernst Journal: Cogn Emot Date: 2018-07-23
Authors: Christian Grillon; Tiffany Lago; Sara Stahl; Alexis Beale; Nicholas Balderston; Monique Ernst Journal: Psychophysiology Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 4.348