Dopamine and light: dissecting effects on mood and motivational states in women with subsyndromal seasonal affective disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that bright light can improve mood, the neurobiology remains poorly understood. Some evidence implicates the catecholamines. In the present study, we measured the effects of transiently decreasing dopamine (DA) synthesis on mood and motivational states in healthy women with mild seasonal mood changes who were tested in either bright or dim light. METHODS: On 2 test days, participants slept overnight in a light-controlled room. On the morning of each session, half of the participants awoke to gradual increases of bright light, up to 3000 lux, and half to dim light (10 lux). For all participants, DA was reduced on 1 of the test days using the acute phenylalanine/tyrosine depletion (APTD) method; on the other day, they ingested a nutritionally balanced control mixture (BAL). Beginning 4 hours postingestion, participants completed subjective mood questionnaires, psychological tests and a progressive ratio breakpoint task during which they worked for successive units of $5. RESULTS: Thirty-two women participated in our study. The APTD lowered mood, agreeableness, energy and the willingness to work for monetary reward. The effects on energy and motivation were independent of light, while the effects on mood and agreeableness were seen in the dim condition only, being prevented by bright light. LIMITATIONS: Acute phenylalanine/tyrosine depletion might affect systems other than DA. The sample size was small. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that increased DA function may be responsible for some of the beneficial effects of light, while adding to the evidence that the neurobiology of mood and motivational states can be dissociated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".