Effect of amantadine on motor memory consolidation in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor skills, once learned, need to be consolidated over time in order to become resistant to disruption or interference. In some instances, the consolidation phase can also include spontaneous gains in performance even in the absence of further rehearsal on a motor task. Clinical and behavioral evidence suggest that N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-receptor activity is required for motor learning acquisition and behavioral synaptic plasticity. However, the involvement of NMDA receptors in motor consolidation, leading to stabilization of the recently formed motor memory, has not yet been assessed in humans. To address this issue, we used post-training administration of amantadine, a low-affinity NMDA-receptor channel blocker. In a double-blind design, 200 mg of amantadine or a matching placebo was given orally to two different groups of 11 healthy young volunteers each. The subjects were tested twice 24 h apart, using a motor adaptation paradigm consisting of an eight-target-pointing task. Comparison of the mean performance levels on this task revealed that subjects in both groups improved their performance levels significantly on Day 2 compared to Day 1, regardless of the treatment administered. Our data indicate that amantadine failed to block motor learning consolidation in subjects that had already learned the motor adaptation task. Thus, although required in some stages (e.g. acquisition) of motor memory processes, the present results suggest that NMDA-receptor activation may not be essential for consolidation of motor adaptation in humans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".