Effects of Dopamine and Norepinephrine on Exercise-induced Oculomotor Fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fatigue-induced impairments in the control of eye movements are detectable via reduced eye movement velocity after a bout of prolonged, strenuous exercise. Slower eye movements caused by neural fatigue within the oculomotor system can be prevented by caffeine, and the upregulation of central catecholamines may be responsible for this effect. This study explored the individual contribution of dopamine and norepinephrine to fatigue-related impairments in oculomotor control. METHODS: The influence of a dopamine reuptake inhibitor (methylphenidate) and a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (reboxetine) was assessed in 12 cyclists performing 180 min of stationary cycling within a placebo-controlled crossover design. Eye movement kinematics (saccades, smooth pursuit, and optokinetic nystagmus) were measured using infrared oculography. Visual attention was assessed with overt and covert spatial attention tasks. RESULTS: Exercise-induced fatigue was associated with a 6% ± 8% reduction in the peak velocity of visually guided, reflexive prosaccades. Importantly, both dopamine reuptake inhibition and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition prevented fatigue-related decrements in the peak velocity of prosaccades. Pursuit eye movements, optokinetic nystagmus, and visual attention tasks were unaffected by exercise or drug treatments. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings suggest that alterations in norepinephrinergic and dopaminergic neurotransmission are linked with the development of fatigue within circuits that control eye movements. Psychiatric medications that target central catecholamines can exert a protective effect on eye movements after prolonged exercise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".