Cited by 108Psychedelics and Drug StudiesMemory Processes and InfluencesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

The effect of acutely administered MDMA on subjective and BOLD-fMRI responses to favourite and worst autobiographical memories

Open access
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Wall, M. B., Erritzoe, D., Kaelen, M., Ferguson, B., De Meer, I., Tanner, M., Bloomfield, M. +8 more·2014·The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is a potent monoamine-releaser that is widely used as a recreational drug. Preliminary work has supported the potential of MDMA in psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The neurobiological mechanisms underlying its putative efficacy are, however, poorly understood. Psychotherapy for PTSD usually requires that patients revisit traumatic memories, and it has been argued that this is easier to do under MDMA. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to investigate the effect of MDMA on recollection of favourite and worst autobiographical memories (AMs). Nineteen participants (five females) with previous experience with MDMA performed a blocked AM recollection (AMR) paradigm after ingestion of 100 mg of MDMA-HCl or ascorbic acid (placebo) in a double-blind, repeated-measures design. Memory cues describing participants' AMs were read by them in the scanner. Favourite memories were rated as significantly more vivid, emotionally intense and positive after MDMA than placebo and worst memories were rated as less negative. Functional MRI data from 17 participants showed robust activations to AMs in regions known to be involved in AMR. There was also a significant effect of memory valence: hippocampal regions showed preferential activations to favourite memories and executive regions to worst memories. MDMA augmented activations to favourite memories in the bilateral fusiform gyrus and somatosensory cortex and attenuated activations to worst memories in the left anterior temporal cortex. These findings are consistent with a positive emotional-bias likely mediated by MDMA's pro-monoaminergic pharmacology.

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 · 10.1017/s1461145713001405

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • THC at encoding reduced DRM false-memory formation.

    “This is consistent with other research in this field, where THC at encoding reduced DRM falsememory formation (19)”

    From Hazy memories in the courtroom: A review of alcohol and other drug effects on false memory and suggestibility (2021) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Methods section describes participants recalling favourite and worst autobiographical memories under MDMA or placebo. Searches for THC, the DRM paradigm, and false-memory formation found no passage addressing the attributed claim; the cited paper’s finding about MDMA and recollection does not establish an effect of THC at encoding. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Wall, M. B., Erritzoe, D., Kaelen, M., Ferguson, B., De Meer, I., Tanner, M., Bloomfield, M., Williams, T. M., Bolstridge, M., Stewart, L., Morgan, C. J., Newbould, R. D., Feilding, A., Curran, H. V., & Nutt, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Beckley Foundation (GB)
Corresponding author
Carhart-Harris, R. L.
Venue
The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology
Published
2013-12-17
Volume
17
Issue
04
Pages
527-540
ISSN
  • 1461-1457 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5111
OpenAlex
W2124413615
Cited by
108
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2013-21-501, ACF-2014-18-010)
  • Imperial College London
  • Medical Research Council (MR/J00460X/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
MDMA, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, autobiographical memory, recollection, memory valence, emotional bias, post-traumatic stress disorder, MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, hippocampus, fusiform gyrus, anterior temporal cortex, monoamine release
MeSH terms
Adult, Cerebral Cortex, Double-Blind Method, Emotions, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Placebos, Mental Recall, Serotonin Agents, N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, Functional Neuroimaging, Memory, Episodic

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