4.7 Article

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effects of lithium on cognition in healthy subjects: mild and selective effects on learning

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 147-157

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0327(99)00178-0

关键词

lithium; cognition; memory; attention; side effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Several studies have shown cognitive impairment in short-term memory, long-term memory and psychomotor speed in bipolar patients taking lithium. The aim of the study was to look at the effect of lithium in normal subjects (N = 30) taking lithium for 3 weeks. A comprehensive battery was used to assess attention and memory. Methods: Subjects were randomized to double-blind treatment with either lithium (N = 15) or placebo (N = 15) for a 3-week period. Thirteen participants in the lithium group and 15 in the placebo group completed the study. The lithium and placebo were administered twice daily in doses varying from 1050 to 1950 mg (mean = 1569 mg). The initial daily dose was calculated according to the Pepin formula to achieve a blood serum lithium level of about 0.8 mmol/l. Cognitive performance (attention, memory) was assessed in each subjects during three periods, i.e. at baseline, after 3 weeks of lithium or placebo, and 2 weeks after discontinuation of study medication. Results: In short-term memory tasks, the performance of subjects in the lithium group was worst 3 weeks after lithium treatment compared to 2 weeks after discontinuation. In long-term memory, a significantly higher number of words was recalled by the placebo group but not the lithium group. Conclusions. Lithium may have an effect on learning when long-term explicit memory test are administered repeatedly. It means that the practice effect when a subject performs the same task several times is less in the lithium-treated group than in the placebo group. This practice effect is related to the learning of a task. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.7
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