4.5 Article

Acute nicotine improves cognitive deficits in young adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
卷 88, 期 4, 页码 407-417

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2007.09.014

关键词

nicotine; cholinergic; ADHD; cognition; behavioral inhibition; delay aversion; methylphenidate; Stop Signal Task; impulsivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The strong association between ADHD and cigarette smoking and the known effects of nicotine on cognition has lead to interest in the role of cholinergic function in ADHD cognitive deficits. We have previously demonstrated that acute nicotine improves behavioral inhibition in adolescents with ADHD. This study examined acute nicotine in young adults with ADHD-Combined type on cognitive domains including behavioral inhibition, delay aversion, and recognition memory. Methods: 15 non-smoking young adults (20 +/- 1.7 years) diagnosed with ADHD-C received acute nicotine (7 mg patch for 45 min) and placebo on separate days. Cognitive tasks included the Stop Signal Task, Choice Delay task, and the High-Low Imagery Task (a verbal recognition memory task). Three subjects experienced side effects and their data was excluded from analysis of cognitive measures. Results: There was a significant (p<.05) positive effect of nicotine on the Stop Signal Reaction Time measure of the Stop Signal Task. The SSRT was improved without changes in GO reaction time or accuracy. There was a trend (p=.09) for nicotine to increase tolerance for delay and a strong trend (p=.06) for nicotine to improve recognition memory. Conclusions: Non-smoking young adults with ADHD-C showed improvements in cognitive performance following nicotine administration in several domains that are central to ADHD. The results from this study support the hypothesis that cholinergic system activity may be important in the cognitive deficits of ADHD and may be a useful therapeutic target. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据