CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Effects of d-amphetamine in human models of information processing and inhibitory control

Open access
Fillmore, Mark T., Kelly, Thomas H., Martin, Catherine A.·2005·Drug and Alcohol Dependence
DOI 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.07.013PMC PMC3201830
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although stimulants are generally associated with enhanced information processing, reports of stimulant effects on behavioral functions that rely on inhibitory processes have been inconsistent. The present research tested the joint effects of d-amphetamine on information processing and inhibitory control in healthy adults (N = 22) with no reported history of illicit stimulant use or drug dependence. Information processing was measured by a rapid information processing (RIP) task and inhibitory control was measured using a stop-signal task. Performance was measured in response to 15 mg/70 kg, 7.5 mg/70 kg, and 0 mg/70 mg (placebo) doses of d-amphetamine, administered double-blind in a randomized, within-subjects design. Results showed that d-amphetamine improved information processing in a dose-dependent manner. By contrast, no enhancement of response inhibition was observed. Stimulant effects were also observed in physiological and subjective effects measures. The findings indicate that a stimulant drug can enhance aspects of cognitive functioning without producing a concomitant improvement in inhibitory control of behavior. The findings highlight the complex nature of stimulant effects on human behavior and the utility of performance tasks as models of complex behavioral and cognitive functions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.07.013

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Baldinger B, Hasenfratz M, Battig K. Comparison of the effects of nicotine on a fixed rate and a subject-paced version of the rapid information processing task. Psychopharmacology. 1995;111:1–16. doi: 10.1007/BF02246080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  2. Battig K, Buzzi R. Effect of coffee on the speed of subject-paced information processing. Neuropsychobiology. 1986;16:126–130. doi: 10.1159/000118312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  3. de Wit H, Crean J, Richards JB. Effects of d-amphetamine and ethanol on a measure of behavioral inhibition in humans. Behav Neurosci. 2000;114:830–837. doi: 10.1037//0735-7044.114.4.830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  4. Fillmore MT. Drug abuse as a problem of impaired control: current approaches and findings. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2003;2:179–197. doi: 10.1177/1534582303257007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  5. Fillmore MT, Blackburn J. Compensating for alcohol-induced impairment: alcohol expectancies and behavioral disinhibition. J Stud Alcohol. 2002;63:237–246. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2002.63.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  6. Fillmore MT, Rush CR. Impaired inhibitory control in chronic cocaine abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;66:265–273. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(01)00206-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  7. Fillmore MT, Rush CR, Hays L. Acute effects of oral cocaine on inhibitory control of behavior in humans. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2002;67:157–167. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00062-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  8. Fillmore MT, Rush CR, Marczinski CA. Effects of d-amphetamine on behavioral control in stimulant abusers: the role of prepotent response tendencies. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2003;71:143–152. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(03)00089-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  9. Fillmore MT, Vogel-Sprott M. An alcohol model of impaired inhibitory control and its treatment in humans. Exp Clin Psychopharm. 1999;7:49–55. doi: 10.1037//1064-1297.7.1.49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  10. Fillmore MT, Vogel-Sprott M. Response inhibition under alcohol: effects of cognitive and motivational conflict. J Stud Alcohol. 2000;61:239–246. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  11. Finn PR. Motivation, working memory, and decision making: a cognitive-motivational theory of personality vulnerability to alcoholism. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2002;1:183–205. doi: 10.1177/1534582302001003001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hasenfratz M, Battig K. Acute dose–effect relationships of caffeine and mental performance, EEG, cardiovascular and subjective parameters. Psychopharmacology. 1994;144:281–287. doi: 10.1007/BF02244850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  13. Hasenfratz M, Bunge A, Dal Pra G, Battig K. Antagonistic effects of caffeine and alcohol on mental performance parameters. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1993;46:463–465. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(93)90380-c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  14. Jasinski D. Assessment of the abuse potentiality of morphine-like drugs (methods used in man) In: Morton WR, editor. Drug Addiction I. Springer-Verlag; New York: 1977. pp. 197–258. [Google Scholar]
  15. Koelega HS. Stimulant drugs and vigilance performance: a review. Psychopharmacology. 1993;111:1–16. doi: 10.1007/BF02257400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  16. Lane SD, Cherek DR, Dougherty DM, Moeller FG. Laboratory measurement of adaptive behavior change in humans with a history of substance dependence. Drug Alcohol Depen. 1998;51:239–252. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(98)00045-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  17. Logan GD. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a user’s guide to the stop-signal paradigm. In: Dagenbach D, Carr TH, editors. Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory, and Language. Academic Press; San Diego: 1994. pp. 189–239. [Google Scholar]
  18. Logan GD, Cowan WB, Davis KA. On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method. J Exp Psychol: Human Percep Perform. 1984;10:276–291. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.10.2.276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  19. Lyvers M. “Loss of control” in alcoholism and drug addiction: a neuroscientific interpretation. Exp Clin Psychopharm. 2000;8:225–249. doi: 10.1037//1064-1297.8.2.225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  20. Martin WR, Sloan JW, Sapiro JD, Jasinski DR. Physiologic, subjective, and behavioral effects of amphetamine, methamphetamine, ephedrine, phenmetrazine, and methylphenidate in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1971;12:245–258. doi: 10.1002/cpt1971122part1245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  21. McGraw K, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Meth. 1996;1:30–46. [Google Scholar]
  22. McNair D, Lorr M, Droppleman L. Profile of Mood States (Manual) Educational and Industrial Testing Services; San Diego, CA: 1971. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mulvihill LE, Skilling TA, Vogel-Sprott M. Alcohol and the ability to inhibit behavior in men and women. J Stud Alcohol. 1997;58:600–605. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1997.58.600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  24. Rush CR, Kollins SH, Pazzaglia PJ. Discriminative-stimulus and participant-rated effects of methylphenidate, bupropion and triazolam in d-amphetamine-trained humans. Exp Clin Psychopharm. 1998;6:32–44. doi: 10.1037//1064-1297.6.1.32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  25. Schachar R, Tannock R, Marriott M, Logan G. Deficient inhibitory control in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1995;23:411–437. doi: 10.1007/BF01447206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  26. Schiffer F. Psychotherapy of nine successfully treated cocaine abusers: techniques and dynamics. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1988;5:131–137. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(88)90001-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  27. Schneider W. MEL Professional: User’s guide. Psychology Software Tools, Inc; Pittsburgh, PA: 1995. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tannock R. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: advances in cognitive, neurobiological, and genetic research. J Child Psychol Psychiat. 1998;39:65–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Tannock R, Schachar R, Logan G. Methylphenidate and cognitive flexibility: dissociated dose effects in hyperactive children. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1995;23:235–267. doi: 10.1007/BF01447091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  30. Volkow ND, Ding YS, Fowler JS, Wang GJ. Cocaine addiction: hypothesis derived from imaging studies with PET. J Addict Dis. 1996;15:55–71. doi: 10.1300/J069v15n04_04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  31. Vree TB, Henderson PT. Pharmacokinetics of amphetamines: in vivo and in vitro studies of factors governing their elimination. In: Caldwell J, editor. Amphetamine and Related Stimulants: Chemical Biological Clinical and Sociological Aspects. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL: 1980. pp. 47–68. [Google Scholar]
  32. Weiss B, Laties V. Enhancement of human performance by caffeine and the amphetamines. Pharmacol Rev. 1962;14:1–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wesnes K, Simpson P, Christmas L. Human Psychopharmacology: Measures and Methods. Vol. 1. Wiley; 1987. The assessment of human information-processing abilities in psychopharmacology; pp. 79–92. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fillmore, M. T., Kelly, T. H., & Martin, C. A.
Affiliations
University of Kentucky (US)
Corresponding author
Fillmore, Mark T.
ORCID
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-02
Volume
77
Issue
2
Pages
151-159
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.07.013
PMC
PMC3201830
OpenAlex
W2054112911
Cited by
53
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Kentucky
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA14079, P50DA005312, R01DA014079)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
d-amphetamine, stimulants, information processing, inhibitory control, response inhibition, stop-signal task, dose-dependent effects, subjective effects, physiological effects, healthy adults
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Dextroamphetamine, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Mental Processes, Psychomotor Performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review