Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33833225›Full record

Trial reportTranslational psychiatry2021

Spontaneous and deliberate creative cognition during and after psilocybin exposure.

N L Mason, K P C Kuypers, J T Reckweg, F Müller, D H Y Tse, B Da Rios, S W Toennes, P Stiers, A Feilding, J G Ramaekers

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Translational psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Catalyst for change: Psilocybin's antidepressant mechanisms-A systematic review.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Impact of psilocybin on cognitive function: A systematic review.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Default Mode Network Modulation by Psychedelics: A Systematic Review.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

N L MasonDepartment of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands. natasha.mason@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7115-0389
K P C KuypersDepartment of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7634-3809
J T ReckwegDepartment of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7916-6334
F MüllerDepartment of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
D H Y TseDepartment of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
B Da RiosDepartment of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
S W ToennesInstitute of Legal Medicine, University of Frankfurt, Kennedyallee 104, D-60596, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1774-3201
P StiersDepartment of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
A FeildingThe Beckley Foundation, Beckley Park, Oxford, OX3 9SY, UK.
J G RamaekersDepartment of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands. j.ramaekers@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4553-376X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Creativity is an essential cognitive ability linked to all areas of our everyday functioning. Thus, finding a way to enhance it is of broad interest. A large number of anecdotal reports suggest that the consumption of psychedelic drugs can enhance creative thinking; however, scientific evidence is lacking. Following a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design, we demonstrated that psilocybin (0.17 mg/kg) induced a time- and construct-related differentiation of effects on creative thinking. Acutely, psilocybin increased ratings of (spontaneous) creative insights, while decreasing (deliberate) task-based creativity. Seven days after psilocybin, number of novel ideas increased. Furthermore, we utilized an ultrahigh field multimodal brain imaging approach, and found that acute and persisting effects were predicted by within- and between-network connectivity of the default mode network. Findings add some support to historical claims that psychedelics can influence aspects of the creative process, potentially indicating them as a tool to investigate creativity and subsequent underlying neural mechanisms. Trial NL6007; psilocybin as a tool for enhanced cognitive flexibility; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6007 .

Indexed as

CognitionCreativityPsilocybinBrainHallucinogensHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingHallucinogensPsilocybin

Identifiers

PMID33833225
PMCPMC8032715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.