Bupropion improves attention but does not affect impulsive behavior in healthy young adults.

Acheson, Ashley; Wit, Harriet de

doi:10.1037/1064-1297.16.2.113

Cited by 76 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(80 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, despite significant correlations with selfreported real-world substance use behaviors (Aklin et al, 2005;Lejuez et al, 2003a,b), the BART has not consistently detected the acute effects of drugs on risk-taking. For example, while Acheson and de Wit (2008) reported decreased risk-taking for males and increased risk-taking for females on the BART following 20 mg d-amphetamine, but not diazepam, Menkes (2011) reported no significant effect of 20 mg diazepam. Similarly, Reynolds and colleagues (2006b) found that acute alcohol doses of 0.4 and 0.8 g/kg did not impact performance on the BART.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Alcohol and Energy Drink Consumption on Intoxication and Risk-Taking Behavior

Peacock

Bruno

Martin

et al. 2013

Alcohol Clin Exp Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It has been argued that consuming alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED) causes a subjective underestimation of intoxication and an increased level of risk-taking behavior. To date, however, there is mixed support for AmED-induced reductions in perceived intoxication, and no objective assessment of risk-taking following AmED consumption. Consequently, the present study aimed to determine the effect of alcohol and energy drink (ED) consumption on subjective measures of intoxication and objective measures of risk-taking. Methods: Using a placebo-controlled, single-blind, cross-over design, participants (n = 28) attended 4 sessions in which they were administered, in counterbalanced order: 0.5 g/kg alcohol, 3.57 ml/kg ED, AmED, and a placebo beverage. Participants completed the Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale and a Subjective Effects Scale at baseline and 30 and 125 minutes postbeverage administration; risk-taking was measured using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Results: Participants reported greater subjective intoxication, impairment, and sedation after active relative to placebo alcohol consumption, with no interactive AmED effects. However, a significant moderate magnitude increase in stimulation ratings was observed in the AmED relative to alcohol, ED, and placebo conditions. There was no independent effect of alcohol, or interactive effect with ED, on the BART. A significant, yet small magnitude, increase in risk-taking was evident in active relative to placebo ED conditions. Conclusions: The interactive effect of AmED appears restricted to perceived stimulation, with alcohol induced increases in subjective intoxication occurring regardless of presence or absence of ED. Engagement in risk-taking behavior was only increased by ED consumption; however, this effect was only of small magnitude; at these doses, alcohol consumption, with or without EDs, did not affect risk-taking. Further research assessing the dose-dependent effects of AmED on objectively measured risk-taking behavior could clarify whether the ED effect increases with higher doses and whether an interactive effect is observed with higher alcohol doses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Alcohol and Energy Drink Consumption on Intoxication and Risk-Taking Behavior

Peacock

Bruno

Martin

et al. 2013

Alcohol Clin Exp Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, a recent study showed that administration of methylphenidate, which increases extracellular levels of dopamine in the BG and pFC, decreased temporal discounting in nonhuman primates (Rajala, Jenison, & Populin, 2015). However, other studies have found that increases in dopamine lead to decreases in patient choices (Pine et al, 2010;Evenden & Ryan, 1996;Logue et al, 1992) or to no differences (Acheson & de Wit, 2008;Hamidovic, Kang, & de Wit, 2008). These findings may be reconciled by the idea that the relationship between dopamine levels and performance on a given task follows an inverted U-shape function ( Joutsa et al, 2015;Cools & D'Esposito, 2011) such that individual or population level differences in baseline dopamine influence whether manipulating dopamine levels will be beneficial or detrimental.…”

Section: Dopamine and Consideration Of Future Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dopamine Modulation of Intertemporal Decision-making: Evidence from Parkinson Disease

Foerde

Figner

Doll

et al. 2016

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract■ Choosing between sooner smaller rewards and larger later rewards is a common choice problem, and studies widely agree that frontostriatal circuits heavily innervated by dopamine are centrally involved. Understanding how dopamine modulates intertemporal choice has important implications for neurobiological models and for understanding the mechanisms underlying maladaptive decision-making. However, the specific role of dopamine in intertemporal decisions is not well understood. Dopamine may play a role in multiple aspects of intertemporal choices-the valuation of choice outcomes and sensitivity to reward delays. To assess the role of dopamine in intertemporal decisions, we tested Parkinson's disease patients who suffer from dopamine depletion in the striatum, in either high (on medication, PD ON ) or low (off medication, PD OFF ) dopaminergic states. Compared with both PD OFF and healthy controls, PD ON made more farsighted choices and reduced their valuations less as a function of increasing time to reward. Furthermore, reduced discounting in the high dopaminergic state was robust across multiple measures, providing new evidence for dopamine's role in making decisions about the future. ■

show abstract

“…The payout schedule is lower compared with most versions of the task (e.g., Dean et al, 2011;Lejuez et al, 2002;Mata et al, 2012). It is important that data indicates that the value of a balloon pump does affect decision biases in the BART, with those with low impulsivity/sensation seeking self-report scores being the most sensitive; specifically, as the value of a single pump increases (e.g., from one penny to one quarter per pump), participants are generally less willing to take more risk (Acheson & de Wit, 2008;Bornovalova et al, 2009). Because the payout schedule implemented here is lower than most versions, this suggests that participants may have taken more risk here than under typical implementations of the task, and that any moderating effects of individual differences in impulsivity/sensation seeking may have been reduced.…”

Section: Comparing the Bart With Other Risk-taking Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling behavioral reactivity to losses and rewards on the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART): Moderation by alcohol problem severity.

Ashenhurst¹,

Bujarski²,

Jentsch³

et al. 2014

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between risk-taking behavior and substance dependence has proven to be complex, particularly when examining across participants expressing a range of substance use problem severity. While main indices of risk-taking in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) positively associate with problematic alcohol use in adolescent populations (e.g., MacPherson, Magidson, Reynolds, Kahler, & Lejuez, 2010), several studies have observed a negative relationship when examining behavior within adult substance using populations (Ashenhurst, Jentsch, & Ray, 2011; Campbell, Samartgis, & Crowe, 2013). To examine potential mechanisms that underlie this negative relationship, we implemented multilevel regression models on trial-by-trial BART data gathered from 295 adult problem drinkers. These models accounted for participant behavior on trials following balloon bursts or cash outs as indices of loss and reward reactivity, respectively, and included control variables including age, IQ, and individual delay discounting rate. Results revealed that individual trial pumping was significantly predicted by trial number, and by whether or not the previous trial was a big burst or a big cash out (i.e., large magnitude of potential gains) in a manner consistent with a “near-miss” effect. Furthermore, severity of alcohol problems moderated the effect of a previous trial big burst, but not of a big cash out, on subsequent trial behavior such that those with greater severity demonstrated relative insensitivity to this “near-miss” effect. These results extend previous studies suggesting that alcohol abusers are less risky on the BART by specifying a mechanism underlying this pattern, namely, diminished reactivity to large magnitude losses.

show abstract

Bupropion improves attention but does not affect impulsive behavior in healthy young adults.

Cited by 76 publications

References 63 publications

The Impact of Alcohol and Energy Drink Consumption on Intoxication and Risk-Taking Behavior

The Impact of Alcohol and Energy Drink Consumption on Intoxication and Risk-Taking Behavior

Dopamine Modulation of Intertemporal Decision-making: Evidence from Parkinson Disease

Modeling behavioral reactivity to losses and rewards on the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART): Moderation by alcohol problem severity.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About