4.3 Article

Antisaccade and smooth pursuit eye movements in healthy subjects receiving sertraline and lorazepam

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 30-36

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/026988110001400103

关键词

abnormal saccadic distractibility; antisaccades; benzodiazepines; lorazepam; practice effects; saccadic eye movements; schizophrenia; sertraline; smooth pursuit eye movements

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients suffering from some psychiatric and neurological disorders demonstrate abnormally high levels of saccadic distractibility when carrying out the antisaccade task. This has been particularly thoroughly demonstrated in patients with schizophrenia. A large body of evidence has been accumulated from studies of patients which suggests that such eye movement abnormalities may arise from frontal lobe dysfunction. The psychopharmacology of saccadic distractibility is less well understood, but is relevant both to interpreting patient studies and to establishing the neurological basis of their findings. Twenty healthy subjects received lorazepam 0.5 mg, 1 mg and 2 mg, sertraline 50 mg and placebo in a balanced, repeated measures study design. Antisaccade, no-saccade, visually guided saccade and smooth pursuit tasks were carried out and the effects of practice and drugs measured. Lorazepam increased direction errors in the antisaccade and no-saccade tasks in a dose-dependent manner. Sertraline had no effect on these measures. Correlation showed a statistically significant, but rather weak, association between direction errors and smooth pursuit measures. Practice was shown to have a powerful effect on antisaccade direction errors. This study supports our previous work by confirming that lorazepam reliably worsens saccadic distractibility, in contrast to other psychotropic drugs such as sertraline and chlorpromazine. Our results also suggest that other studies in this field, particularly those using parallel groups design, should take account of practice effects.

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

4.3
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