ArticlePsychopharmacology2017
Haloperidol 2 mg impairs inhibition but not visuospatial attention.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of antipsychotics on human cognitive function: causal evidence from healthy volunteers following sustained D2/D3 antagonism, D2/D3 partial agonism and placebo.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Trial
- The effect of continuous theta burst stimulation on antipsychotic-induced weight gain in first-episode drug-naive individuals with schizophrenia: a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled feasibility trial.Translational psychiatry · 2024Trial
- Ropinirole, a dopamine agonist with high DNeuropharmacology · 2020Trial
- Mindfulness and inhibitory control: Insights from the stop signal task with neutral and reward-associated stimuli.PloS one · 2024Article
- Dispositional Mindfulness and Inhibitory Control after Perceiving Neutral, Food and Money Related Stimuli.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The relationship between reward context and inhibitory control, does it depend on BMI, maladaptive eating, and negative affect?BMC psychology · 2022Article
- Inhibitory Performance in Smokers Relative to Nonsmokers When Exposed to Neutral, Smoking- and Money-Related Pictures.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Locus coeruleus integrity and the effect of atomoxetine on response inhibition in Parkinson's disease.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2021Article
- Attentional bias and disengagement as a function of Body Mass Index in conditions that differ in anticipated reward.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2020Article
- Dopaminergic and noradrenergic manipulation of anticipatory reward and probability event-related potentials.Psychopharmacology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleThe dopaminergic system has been implicated in visuospatial attention and inhibition, but the exact role has yet to be elucidated. Scarce literature suggests that attenuation of dopaminergic neurotransmission negatively affects attentional focusing and inhibition. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluated the effect of dopaminergic antagonism on stopping performance.
methodsDopaminergic neurotransmission was attenuated in 28 healthy male participants by using 2 mg haloperidol. A repeated-measures placebo-controlled crossover design was implemented, and performance indices of attention and inhibition were assessed in the visual spatial cueing task (VSC) and stop signal task (SST). Additionally, the effect of haloperidol on motoric parameters was assessed. It was expected that haloperidol as contrasted to placebo would result in a reduction of the "validity effect," the benefit of valid cueing as opposed to invalid cueing of a target in terms of reaction time. Furthermore, an increase in stop signal reaction time (SSRT) in the SST was expected. RESULTS AND
conclusionResults partially confirmed the hypothesis. Haloperidol negatively affected inhibitory motor control in the SST as indexed by SSRT, but there were no indications that haloperidol affected bias or disengagement in the VSC task as indicated by a lack of an effect on RTs. Pertaining to secondary parameters, motor activity increased significantly under haloperidol. Haloperidol negatively affected reaction time variability and errors in both tasks, as well as omissions in the SST, indicating a decreased sustained attention, an increase in premature responses, and an increase in lapses of attention, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.