Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22526538›Full record

Trial reportPsychopharmacology2012

Amphetamine as a social drug: effects of d-amphetamine on social processing and behavior.

Margaret C Wardle, Matthew J Garner, Marcus R Munafò, Harriet de Wit

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Psychopharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. MDMA enhances positive affective responses to social feedback.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Intimate insight: MDMA changes how people talk about significant others.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2015
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. A window into the intoxicated mind? Speech as an index of psychoactive drug effects.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2014
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Derationalizing Delusions.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Neural responses to cues paired with methamphetamine in healthy volunteers.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2018
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Margaret C WardleDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., MC 3077, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Matthew J Garner
Marcus R Munafò
Harriet de Wit
University of Chicago · USUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Determinants of Drug Preference in Humans--Administrative SupplementR01DA002812 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI DE WIT, HARRIET · 1985 to 2024
$10.6M
NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOLGY TRG FOR DRUG ABUSE RESEARCHT32DA007255 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI VEZINA, PAUL R · 1991 to 2012
$5.9M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA002812NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA02812NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA007255
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleDrug users often report using drugs to enhance social situations, and empirical studies support the idea that drugs increase both social behavior and the value of social interactions. One way that drugs may affect social behavior is by altering social processing, for example by decreasing perceptions of negative emotion in others.

objectivesWe examined effects of d-amphetamine on processing of emotional facial expressions and on the social behavior of talking. We predicted amphetamine would enhance attention, identification, and responsivity to positive expressions, and that this in turn would predict increased talkativeness.

methodsOver three sessions, 36 healthy normal adults received placebo, 10, and 20 mg d-amphetamine under counterbalanced double-blind conditions. At each session, we measured processing of happy, fearful, sad, and angry expressions using an attentional visual probe task, a dynamic emotion identification task, and measures of facial muscle activity. We also measured talking.

resultsAmphetamine decreased the threshold for identifying all emotions, increased negative facial responses to sad expressions, and increased talkativeness. Contrary to our hypotheses, amphetamine did not alter attention to, identification of, or facial responses to positive emotions specifically. Interestingly, the drug decreased the threshold to identify all emotions, and this effect was uniquely related to increased talkativeness, even after controlling for overall sensitivity to amphetamine.

conclusionsThe results suggest that amphetamine may encourage sociability by increasing sensitivity to subtle emotional expressions. These findings suggest novel social mechanisms that may contribute to the rewarding effects of amphetamine.

Indexed as

Facial ExpressionSocial BehaviorAdolescentAdultAmphetamineCentral Nervous System StimulantsDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodEmotionsFacial MusclesFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychological TestsPattern Recognition, VisualPhotic StimulationAmphetamineCentral Nervous System Stimulants

Identifiers

PMID22526538
PMCPMC3422595
OpenAlexW2030503894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.