Working memory deficits after traumatic brain injury: Catecholaminergic mechanisms and prospects for treatment – a review
Abstract
Primary objective To review the neural circuitry and neurochemistry of working memory and outline the evidence for working memory deficits after traumatic brain injury, and the evidence for the use of catecholaminergic agents in the amelioration of these deficits. Current knowledge gaps and research needs are identified. Main outcomes and results Impairments in working memory are a core component of the cognitive deficits associated with traumatic brain injury. Recent progress in understanding the neural circuitry and neurochemistry of working memory suggests that catecholamines play a central role in the activation and regulation of working memory and thus lays a framework in which to consider the use of catecholaminergic agents (dopaminergic and alpha-2 adrenergic agonists) in the treatment of specific cognitive deficits after traumatic brain injury. Conclusions The combined methods of cognitive neuroscience, functional brain imaging and neuropharmacology are proposed as an excellent method for studying working memory deficits. A strong rationale exists for the targeted use of catecholaminergic agonists in the treatment of working memory deficits after traumatic brain injury.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Studies of humans with TBI support the view that guanfacine improves working memory and enhances fMRI BOLD activation of PFC.
“Studies of humans with TBI support this view (McAllister et al., 2004, McAllister et al., 2011), including evidence of improved working memory and enhanced fMRI BOLD activation of PFC (McAllister et al., 2011).”
From Guanfacine’s mechanism of action in treating prefrontal cortical disorders: Successful translation across species (2020) · cites this paper as McAllister et al., 2004
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 135 · Cited by 143
- Authors
- Mcallister, T. W., Flashman, L. A., Sparling, M. B., & Saykin, A. J.
- Affiliations
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mcallister, Thomas W.
- Venue
- Brain Injury
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 331-350
- ISSN
- 0269-9052 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-301X
- OpenAlex
- W2046930495
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 135
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 1.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Brain Injury (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01-NS-40472-01, R01NS040472)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- working memory deficits, traumatic brain injury, catecholamines, dopamine agonists, alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, neurochemistry, cognitive impairment
- MeSH terms
- Adrenergic alpha-Agonists, Brain Injuries, Humans, Memory Disorders, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Neurological, Dopamine Agonists
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
