Trial reportPsychopharmacology2025
Effect of muscarinic blockade on the speed of attention shifting, read-out delays and learning.
Trial report in Psychopharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study aimed to investigate to what extent blockade of muscarinic receptors affects the speed of endogenous versus exogenous attentional shift times, and how it affects learning of attention shifting, cue detection and signal readout. Subjects viewed an array of 10 moving clocks and reported the time a clock indicated when cued. Target clocks were indicated by peripheral or central cues, including conditions of pre-cuing. For peripheral and central cuing, it yielded a compound measure of how long it took to detect the cue, shift attention to the relevant clock and read the time on the clock. For the pre-cue condition it yielded a measure of how long it took to detect the cue and read the time on the clock when attention could have been pre-allocated to the target clock. In study 1, each subject participated in 2 sessions (scopolamine/placebo), whereby the order of drug intake was counterbalanced across subjects, and subjects were blinded to conditions. Scopolamine/placebo was administered before a psychophysical experiment was conducted. In study 2, the effect of muscarinic blockade on learning induced improvements of cue detection, attention shift times (for exogenous and endogenous conditions), and signal readout was investigated. Here scopolamine/placebo was administered immediately after the first (of two) psychophysical sessions, whereby a given subject either received scopolamine or placebo pills. Confirming previous results, we show that pre-cuing resulted in the shortest read-out delays, followed by exogenous cuing, with endogenous read-out delays being slowest. Scopolamine application increased readout-delays in a dose dependent manner. This was mainly driven by increased readout-delays for pre-cue conditions, and to some extent for exogenous cue conditions. It suggests that muscarinic blockade affected the ability to pre-allocated attention to a cued location, as well as to react to peripheral cues. Additionally, blockade of muscarinic receptors immediately after the first session reduced learning dependent improvement of read-out delays. These results demonstrate that muscarinic receptors play an important in detecting cues, and fast read-out of cued information, and they contribute to the learning thereof.
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.