Cited by 46Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Triazolam-amphetamine interaction: dissociation of effects on memory versus arousal

Mintzer, Miriam Z., Griffiths, Roland R.·2003·Journal of Psychopharmacology

Abstract

It is well-documented that benzodiazepine sedative/hypnotics produce robust dose-dependent memory-impairing effects. However, benzodiazepines also induce marked sedation, as reflected in changes in observer and subjective ratings of arousal and impaired psychomotor performance. Thus, it is possible that the observed amnestic effects are secondary to more global sedative effects, and do not reflect a specific, primary, benzodiazepine effect on memory mechanisms. This study was designed to use the non-specific stimulant d-amphetamine to dissociate the sedative and memory-impairing effects of the benzodiazepine triazolam. Across four sessions, 20 healthy adult volunteers received via oral capsule administration placebo, 0.25 mg/70 kg triazolam alone, 20 mg/70 kg d-amphetamine sulfate alone, and triazolam (0.25 mg/ 70 kg) and d-amphetamine (20 mg/70 kg) conjointly, in a double-blind, staggered dosing, cross-over design. d-Amphetamine significantly reversed the effects of triazolam on all participant rating and psychomotor performance-based measures of sedative effects, and selectively reversed the memory-impairing effects of triazolam on some measures (e.g. working memory assessed by a 2-back task, episodic memory assessed by free recall, metamemory), but not others (e.g. working memory assessed by a digit recall task, episodic memory assessed by recognition memory). Results suggest that benzodiazepines do have specific effects on memory that are not merely a by-product of the dr…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269881103017001689

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 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
Mintzer, M. Z., & Griffiths, R. R.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Mintzer, Miriam Z.
Venue
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Published
2003-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
17-29
ISSN
  • 0269-8811 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7285
OpenAlex
W2077569859
Cited by
46
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA03889, R01DA003889, DA–11936, R01DA011936)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
triazolam, amphetamine, benzodiazepines, drug interactions, memory impairment, sedation, arousal, working memory, episodic memory, metamemory, recognition memory, free recall, psychomotor performance
MeSH terms
Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Arousal, Dextroamphetamine, Double-Blind Method, Drug Antagonism, Female, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Male, Memory, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Psychomotor Performance, Mental Recall, Time Factors, Triazolam, Cross-Over Studies

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