Effects of tolcapone and bromocriptine on cognitive stability and flexibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The prefrontal cortex (PFC) and basal ganglia (BG) have been associated with cognitive stability and cognitive flexibility, respectively. We hypothesized that increasing PFC dopamine tone by administering tolcapone (a catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitor) to human subjects should promote stability; conversely, increasing BG dopamine tone by administering bromocriptine (a D2 receptor agonist) should promote flexibility. OBJECTIVE: We assessed these hypotheses by administering tolcapone, bromocriptine, and a placebo to healthy subjects who performed a saccadic eye movement task requiring stability and flexibility. METHODS: We used a randomized, double-blind, within-subject design that was counterbalanced across drug administration sessions. In each session, subjects were cued to prepare for a pro-saccade (look towards a visual stimulus) or anti-saccade (look away) on every trial. On 60% of the trials, subjects were instructed to switch the response already in preparation. We hypothesized that flexibility would be required on switch trials, whereas stability would be required on non-switch trials. The primary measure of performance was efficiency (the percentage correct divided by reaction time for each trial type). RESULTS: Subjects were significantly less efficient across all trial types under tolcapone, and there were no significant effects of bromocriptine. After grouping subjects based on Val158Met COMT polymorphism, we found that Met/Met and Val/Met subjects (greater PFC dopamine) were less efficient compared to Val/Val subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal behavior was based on obeying the environmental stimuli, and we found reduced efficiency with greater PFC dopamine tone. We suggest that greater PFC dopamine interfered with the ability to flexibly follow the environment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".