Cited by 44Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

A shift of paradigm: From noradrenergic to dopaminergic modulation of learning?

Breitenstein, Caterina, Flöel, Agnes, Korsukewitz, Catharina, Wailke, Stefanie, Bushuven, Stefan, Knecht, Stefan·2006·Journal of the Neurological Sciences

Abstract

d-Amphetamine coupled with behavioral training has been effective for improving functional recovery after stroke. d-amphetamine acts on multiple brain transmitter systems, but the recovery enhancing effect has been attributed to its noradrenergic actions. Another potent modulator of learning is dopamine, which may also enhance stroke recovery in humans. Based on data from previous studies of our group, we compared the learning enhancing effects of d-amphetamine with a more selective dopaminergic substance (levodopa) in identical protocols. Using a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design, we had taught 60 male healthy subjects a miniature lexicon of 50 concrete nouns over the course of five consecutive training days using an associative learning principle. Subjects had received either d-amphetamine (0.25 mg/kg), levodopa/carbidopa (fixed dose of 100/25 mg), or placebo 90 min prior to training on each of the 5 days. Novel word learning was significantly enhanced in both the d-amphetamine and levodopa groups as compared to the placebo group. The learning superiority was maintained at the two re-assessments (1 week and 1 month post training). Both d-amphetamine and levodopa are thus potent drugs in enhancing learning in humans. We here discuss why the efficiency of both d-amphetamine and levodopa may be related to dopaminergic rather than noradrenergic actions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jns.2006.05.012

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Breitenstein, C., Flöel, A., Korsukewitz, C., Wailke, S., Bushuven, S., & Knecht, S.
Affiliations
University of Münster (DE)
Venue
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
248
Issue
1-2
Pages
42-47
ISSN
0022-510X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017344734
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Neurological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
d-amphetamine, levodopa, carbidopa, dopaminergic modulation, noradrenergic modulation, learning improvement, novel word learning, associative learning, stroke recovery, cognitive enhancement
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Dextroamphetamine, Dopamine, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Learning, Levodopa, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Norepinephrine, Time Factors, Dopamine Agents, Adrenergic Agents

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