4.1 Article

Effects of drug countermeasures for space motion sickness on working memory in humans

期刊

NEUROTOXICOLOGY AND TERATOLOGY
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 825-837

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ntt.2004.07.002

关键词

delayed matching-to-sample; short-term memory; meclizine; promethazine; scopolamine; lorazepam

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01RR14288] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Space motion sickness (SMS) is a problem during the first 72 h of space flight and during transitions from different gravity environments. There currently are no effective drug countermeasures for SMS that also accommodate the retention of optimal cognitive function. This creates a dilemma for astronauts because cognitive skills are particularly important during gravity transitions (e.g., take-off and landing). To quantify the cognitive side effects of potential drug countermeasures, an automated delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) procedure was used to assess visual working memory before and after drug countermeasures (meclizine 25 mg, scopolamine 0.4 mg, promethazine 25 mg, or lorazepam 1 mg, given orally approximately 45 min prior to testing) and/or the induction of SMS by vestibular stimulation in a rotary chair (spinning). Sixty-seven normal healthy volunteers (mean age, in years, 26.6 +/- 4.8 S.D.; 24 females and 43 males) each participated in two test sessions, one 'off' drug and one 'on' drug. Spinning by itself significantly decreased task accuracy (Acc) and choice response speed, especially at longer recall delays. Meclizine alone had no effect on Acc or speed with or without spinning. Scopolamine alone decreased Acc, and with spinning, slowed speed. Promethazine alone had no adverse effect, but combined with spinning, decreased Acc and speed. Lorazepam alone decreased speed, and with spinning, decreased Acc. The data suggest that, at clinically useful doses, the rank order of the drugs with the best cognitive profiles is meclizine>scopolamine>promethazine>lorazepam. (C) 2004 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

4.1
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