Cited by 103Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain function

Amphetamine modulates brain signal variability and working memory in younger and older adults

Open access
Garrett, Douglas D., Nagel, Irene E., Preuschhof, Claudia, Burzynska, Agnieszka Z., Marchner, Janina, Wiegert, Steffen, Jungehülsing, Gerhard J., Nyberg, Lars +5 more·2015·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Younger, better performing adults typically show greater brain signal variability than older, poorer performers, but the mechanisms underlying this observation remain elusive. We attempt to restore deficient functional-MRI–based blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal variability (SD BOLD ) levels in older adults by boosting dopamine via d -amphetamine (AMPH). Notably, older adults met or exceeded young adult SD BOLD levels under AMPH. AMPH-driven changes in SD BOLD also predicted AMPH-driven changes in reaction time speed and variability on a working memory task, but depended greatly on age and drug administration order. These findings ( i ) suggest that dopamine may account for adult age differences in brain signal variability and ( ii ) highlight the importance of considering practice effects and state dependencies when evaluating the neurochemical basis of age- and cognition-related brain dynamics.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1504090112

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • In healthy adults, amphetamine increases BOLD signal variability and exerts an equalizing effect on ventral striatum activity during incentive processing.

    “In fMRI studies in healthy adults, AMP increased BOLD signal variability (137) and exerted an “equalizing” effect on ventral striatum activity during incentive processing (141).”

    From The pharmacology of amphetamine and methylphenidate: Relevance to the neurobiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and other psychiatric comorbidities (2018) · cites this paper as [137]

    The citation to this paper is attached to the BOLD-variability claim, not the separate ventral-striatum claim. The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that amphetamine increased BOLD signal variability in older adults, but says younger adults showed a mix of increases and decreases, with no net group change. The unqualified claim about healthy adults therefore overgeneralizes the finding. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Mattay VS, et al. (2003) Catechol O-methyltransferase val158-met genotype and individual variation in the brain response to amphetamine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(10):6186-6191.
  2. Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TEJ, Woolrich MW, Smith SM (2012) FSL. Neu- roimage 62(2):782-790.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garrett, D. D., Nagel, I. E., Preuschhof, C., Burzynska, A. Z., Marchner, J., Wiegert, S., Jungehülsing, G. J., Nyberg, L., Villringer, A., Li, S.-C., Heekeren, H. R., Bäckman, L., & Lindenberger, U.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Klinik für Neurologie, Jüdisches Krankenhaus, 13347 Berlin, Germany;
  • Umeå University (SE)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-06
Volume
112
Issue
24
Pages
7593-7598
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2134174619
Cited by
103
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Intramural Innovation Fund)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (N/A)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Leibniz Award)
  • Vetenskapsrådet (N/A)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
amphetamine, brain signal variability, BOLD signal variability, working memory, cognitive aging, practice effects, reaction time variability, older adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aging, Brain, Dextroamphetamine, Dopamine, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Multivariate Analysis, Least-Squares Analysis, Young Adult, Functional Neuroimaging

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