Psilocybin’s effects on cognition and creativity: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on psilocybin has become increasingly popular during the current psychedelic renaissance, which began in the early 1990s. Psilocybin's effects on mental health are promising and there are ongoing efforts to investigate its clinical implementation and its effects on cognition. AIMS: The purpose of this study is to report trends in publications, methods, and findings from research examining the effects of psilocybin on cognition and creativity in adults. METHODS: We conducted an Open Science Framework preregistered scoping review, guided by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, on literature pertaining to psilocybin's effects on cognition and creativity. RESULTS/OUTCOMES: In the 42 included studies, psilocybin was primarily administered orally (83%) in a bodyweight-adjusted manner (74%) to healthy participants (90%). Of the few studies that explicitly reported safety outcomes (26%), only one reported serious adverse reactions. During the acute phase post-intake (i.e., minutes to hours), macrodoses tended to impair cognitive performance and creativity, whereas microdoses tended toward creative enhancement. The few macrodosing studies that included post-acute measures (i.e., 1-85 days) reported primarily null but some positive effects. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This scoping review identified a time-based variation of psilocybin macrodosing effects on cognition and creativity, in which impairment may be observed early post-intake but withdraw over time, and some positive effects may emerge afterward. These findings are limited by methodological concerns and inadequate assessment of long-term effects. We therefore recommend that future psilocybin research be conducted according to existing guidelines and include well-validated measures of cognition and creativity at multiple timepoints.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".