Effects of dopamine D2/D3 receptor antagonism on human planning and spatial working memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychopharmacological studies in humans suggest important roles for dopamine (DA) D2 receptors in human executive functions, such as cognitive planning and spatial working memory (SWM). However, studies that investigate an impairment of such functions using the selective DA D2/3 receptor antagonist sulpiride have yielded inconsistent results, perhaps because relatively low doses were used. We believe we report for the first time, the effects of a higher (800 mg p.o.) single dose of sulpiride as well as of genetic variation in the DA receptor D2 gene (DA receptor D2 Taq1A polymorphism), on planning and working memory. With 78 healthy male volunteers, we apply a between-groups, placebo-controlled design. We measure outcomes in the difficult versions of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery One-Touch Stockings of Cambridge and the self-ordered SWM task. Volunteers in the sulpiride group showed significant impairments in planning accuracy and, for the more difficult problems, in SWM. Sulpiride administration speeded response latencies in the planning task on the most difficult problems. Volunteers with at least one copy of the minor allele (A1+) of the DA receptor D2 Taq1A polymorphism showed better SWM capacity, regardless of whether they received sulpiride or placebo. There were no effects on blood pressure, heart rate or subjective sedation. In sum, a higher single dose of sulpiride impairs SWM and executive planning functions, in a manner independent of the DA receptor D2 Taq1A polymorphism.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".