| Literature DB >> 28377707 |
Mira Chamoun1, Frédéric Huppé-Gourgues1, Isabelle Legault2, Pedro Rosa-Neto3, Daniela Dumbrava4, Jocelyn Faubert2, Elvire Vaucher1.
Abstract
A large body of literature supports cognitive enhancement as an effect of cholinergic potentiation. However, it remains elusive whether pharmacological manipulations of cholinergic neurotransmission enhance complex visual processing in healthy individuals. To test this hypothesis, we randomly administered either the cholinergic transmission enhancer donepezil (DPZ; 5 mg P.O.) or placebo (lactose) to young adults (n = 17) 3 h before each session of the three-dimensional (3D) multiple object tracking (3D-MOT) task. This multi-focal attention task evaluates perceptual-cognitive learning over five sessions conducted 7 days apart. A significant amount of learning was observed in the DPZ group but not the placebo group in the fourth session. In the fifth session, this learning effect was observed in both groups. Furthermore, preliminary results for a subgroup of participants (n = 9) 4-14 months later suggested the cholinergic enhancement effect was long lasting. On the other hand, DPZ had no effect on basic visual processing as measured by a motion and orientation discrimination task performed as an independent one-time, pre-post drug study without placebo control (n = 10). The results support the construct that cholinergic enhancement facilitates the encoding of a highly demanding perceptual-cognitive task although there were no significant drug effects on the performance levels compared to placebo.Entities:
Keywords: 3D-multiple object tracking/NeuroTracker; acetylcholine; acetylcholinesterase inhibitor; attention; cognitive enhancer; donepezil; sensory training; visual learning
Year: 2017 PMID: 28377707 PMCID: PMC5359296 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00128
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Demographic data: participant characteristics and involvement in the three-dimensional (3D)-MOT task and basic visual discrimination tasks.
| Participant | Age years | Height cm | Weight kg | BMI kg/m2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOT | 17 | 23 ± 1 (20–31) | 173 ± 3 (157–193) | 69 ± 3 (47–95) | 22 ± 1 (19–26) |
| DPZ group | 9 | 22 ± 1 (20–26) | 176 ± 3 (167–193) | 71 ± 4 (56–90) | 22 ± 1 (19–26) |
| Placebo | 8 | 24 ± 1 (20–31) | 169 ± 4 (157–192) | 67 ± 6 (47–95) | 23 ± 1 (19–25) |
| MOT, long-term | 9 | 24 ± 1 (20–31) | 173 ± 3 (159–193) | 70 ± 4 (50–90) | 23 ± 1 (19–25) |
| Visual discrimination | 10 | 23 ± 1 (20–27) | 174 ± 2 (167–193) | 69 ± 3 (68–90) | 23 ± 1 (19–25) |
Values represent the mean ± SEM (range) of participants in the MOT task, long-term MOT testing and basic motion and orientation discrimination tasks (Visual discrimination). Only a subset of participants could participate in the long-term MOT retesting and visual discrimination task. BMI, body mass index; MOT, multiple object tracking.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| Aged 20–35 | Previous MOT task participant |
| Good health | Attention deficit |
| Body mass index between 17 and 26 | Smoker |
| No visual impairment or ocular pathology not corrected by glasses or contact lenses | Pregnant, breast feeding or planning a pregnancy |
| Good 3D vision | Lactose intolerance |
Figure 1Three-dimensional (3D)-multiple object tracking (3D-MOT) task: comparison of tracking performance in the donepezil (DPZ) and placebo group. (A) Example of the 3D-MOT: eight yellow spheres are randomly positioned in a virtual 3D environment; four randomly selected spheres turn orange for identification of the spheres to track (targets); then all spheres turn back to yellow and move following a random linear trajectory (arrows represent initial movement) at a defined speed; the spheres stop, are numbered and the participant identifies the targets (orange border); finally, the targets turn orange for correct feedback; the targets turn yellow with a red border for a wrong answer and the targets turn light orange for a right answer not identified. The trial is then repeated, changing the speed of the movement of the spheres using a 1-up-1-down staircase procedure. The speed threshold for which the subjects are able to track balls is calculated from the mean of the last four reversals of the staircase. (B) Tracking performance in terms of speed threshold (cm/s) for each participant every testing week (Weeks 1–5) in the control group (blue-shaded squares) and DPZ group (purple-shaded circles). The mean of the speed threshold (gray bar) is given. (C) Speed threshold (percent change from baseline) for tracking performance of subjects every testing week and during long-term testing (4–14 months after the initial training) for the control group (in blue) and the DPZ group (in purple). (D) The significance table represents (a) the statistical comparison of the mean speed threshold for each group using Friedman’s test with Bonferroni correction (upper panel). Note that the DPZ group significantly improved their performance (significant difference in speed threshold compared to baseline value) at Weeks 4 and 5, while the control group only reached this level of improvement at Week 5; (b) the statistical comparison of the mean speed threshold of long-term testing to baseline values using the Wilcoxon test. There was a significant sustained improvement in the speed threshold in the DPZ group but not in the control group. *Significantly different compared to baseline (week 1), p < 0.05.
Figure 2Motion and orientation discrimination: acute effect of a one-time administration of DPZ. (A) Representation of the basic visual perception tasks of motion (upper panel) and orientation (lower panel) discrimination of the stimulus. The stimulus is a sine-wave grating of 0.3 cycles per degree modulated by discrete variations of luminance, first-order luminance defined stimulus (left panel) or contrast, second-order contrast defined stimulus (right panel). Average Michelson contrast thresholds are shown for luminance-defined stimulus (B) for the discrimination of motion (left) or orientation (right) before (open bar) and 3 h after (black bar) DPZ intake, and for the contrast-defined stimulus (C) for the discrimination of motion (left) or orientation (right) before (open bar) and 3 h after (black bar) DPZ intake. For both the motion and the orientation discrimination tasks, neither the mean luminance modulation threshold nor the mean contrast modulation thresholds reached by the participants were altered by the intake of DPZ (Wilcoxon test, p > 0.05). Error bars represent SEM values.