Comparison of the effects of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine and D-amphetamine on the ability of rats to discriminate the durations and intensities of light stimuli.

Rats' ability to discriminate durations is disrupted by the monoamine-releasing agent D-amphetamine and the 5-HT2 receptor agonist 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI). It is unknown whether this effect is specific for temporal discrimination or reflects general disruption of stimulus control. This experiment addressed this question by comparing the effects of D-amphetamine and DOI on temporal discrimination and discrimination along a nontemporal dimension, light intensity. Twelve rats responded on a schedule in which a light (intensity 22 cd/m) was presented for t seconds (2.5-47.5 s), after which levers A and B were presented. Responses on A were reinforced when t was less than 25 s, and responses on B were reinforced when t was greater than 25 s. Twelve rats responded on a similar schedule in which a light of intensity i (3.6-128.5 cd/m) was presented for 25 s. Responses on A were reinforced when i was less than 22 cd/m, and responses on B were reinforced when i was greater than 22 cd/m. Logistic functions were fitted and psychophysical parameters estimated [T50, I50 (central tendency of temporal or light-intensity discrimination); Weber fraction (relative discriminative precision)]. D-Amphetamine (0.2-0.8 mg/kg) increased the Weber fraction for temporal and light-intensity discrimination; DOI (0.625-0.25 mg/kg) increased it for temporal discrimination only. Both drugs increased T50; neither altered I50. D-Amphetamine and DOI have similar effects on temporal discrimination but different effects on light-intensity discrimination. The increase in T50 may reflect the impairment of sustained attention during prolonged stimulus presentation.

Effects of lesions of the nucleus accumbens core on inter-temporal choice: further observations with an adjusting-delay procedure.

Previous experiments using progressive-delay schedules showed that destruction of the nucleus accumbens core (AcbC) altered rats' choice between food reinforcers differing in size and delay. Application of a quantitative model of inter-temporal choice suggested that lesions of the AcbC increase the delay-dependent degradation of reinforcer value (delay discounting) without altering instantaneous reinforcer value. This experiment examined the effect of lesions of the AcbC on inter-temporal choice using an adjusting-delay schedule. Rats received excitotoxin-induced lesions of the AcbC or sham lesions. They were trained to press levers A and B for food-pellet reinforcers in an adjusting-delay schedule in which the delay to the larger reinforcer, d(B), varied in accordance with the rats' choices between the two levers. In two experimental conditions, the reinforcers associated with levers A and B were 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 4 pellets. The AcbC-lesioned group showed shorter indifference delays to reinforcer B (d(B(50))) than the sham-lesioned group under both conditions. In confirmation of a prediction derived from the model of inter-temporal choice, the ratio of the indifference delays from the two conditions did not differ between the groups. Analysis of the cyclical changes in d(B) by Fourier transform showed that the period of oscillation and power within the dominant frequency band did not differ between the groups, suggesting that the lesion did not disrupt the rats' ability to detect short-term changes in delay of reinforcement. The results are consistent with previous findings that indicate a role for the AcbC in delay discounting.

Effects of threat of electric shock and diazepam on the N1/P2 auditory-evoked potential elicited by low-intensity auditory stimuli.

The acoustic startle response includes rapid muscular contractions elicited by loud sounds; it may be measured in humans as the electromyographic response of the orbicularis oculi muscle. Enhancement of this response during exposure to threat of electric shock (fear- potentiated startle) is a widely used model of human anxiety. A problem with the use of the startle reflex in studies of human anxiety is the aversiveness of startle-eliciting sounds, which may, in some subjects, exceed the aversiveness of the electric shock itself. We have recently found that the long-latency N1/P2 auditory-evoked potential elicited by loud sounds is subject to fear potentiation. However, it is not known whether N1/P2 potentials elicited by low-intensity sounds, which do not elicit the startle response, are also subject to fear potentiation. This study examined the susceptibility of the N1/P2 potential elicited by low-intensity sounds to fear potentiation, and the effect of the anxiolytic diazepam on the N1/P2 potential in the absence and presence of threat of electric shock. Fifteen male volunteers (18-43 years) participated in three sessions in which they received placebo, diazepam 5 mg and diazepam 10 mg according to a double-blind protocol. Sixty minutes after treatment, auditory-evoked potentials were elicited by 40 ms 1 kHz tones 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 dB[A] above a background of 70 dB[A]. Recording sessions consisted of eight alternating 2 min THREAT and SAFE blocks; unpredictable shocks (1.8 mA, 50 ms) were delivered to the subject's wrist in THREAT blocks (1-4 shocks per block). The amplitude of the N1/P2 potential increased monotonically as a function of stimulus intensity. The responses were significantly greater during THREAT blocks than during SAFE blocks (fear potentiation). Diazepam attenuated the responses in both the SAFE and THREAT conditions. Fear potentiation of the N1/P2 potential was significantly reduced by diazepam. Diazepam reduced subjective alertness and lowered critical flicker fusion frequency, a measure of arousal. The results suggest that fear potentiation of the N1/P2 potential is not simply a manifestation of the fear-potentiated startle response. The use of low-intensity stimuli may be advantageous in studies of fear potentiation in humans.

Arousal and the pupil: why diazepam-induced sedation is not accompanied by miosis.

RATIONALE: There is a close relationship between arousal and pupil diameter, decrease in the level of arousal being accompanied by constriction of the pupil (miosis), probably reflecting the attenuation of sympathetic outflow as sedation sets in. Paradoxically, sedation induced by benzodiazepines is not accompanied by miosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the hypothesis that diazepam may attenuate both the sympathetic and the opposing parasympathetic outflow to the iris, which may mask the miosis. Dapiprazole (sympatholytic) and tropicamide (parasympatholytic) were applied topically, together with the cold pressor test (CPT), to manipulate the sympathetic/parasympathetic balance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen healthy male volunteers participated in four weekly sessions according to a balanced double-blind protocol. Diazepam 10 mg (two sessions) and placebo (two sessions), associated with either 0.01% tropicamide or 0.5% dapiprazole eyedrops, were administered orally. Pupil diameter, light and darkness reflexes and pupillary sleepiness waves were recorded with infrared video pupillometry, alertness was measured by critical flicker fusion frequency (CFFF) and visual analogue scales (VAS), blood pressure and heart rate by conventional methods. CPT was applied after post-treatment testing. Data were analysed by analysis of variance, with multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Diazepam caused sedation (reduction in VAS alertness scores and CFFF, increase in sleepiness waves), dapiprazole had a sympatholytic and tropicamide a parasympatholytic effect on the pupil. Diazepam had no effect on pupil diameter and reflexes or their modifications by the antagonists. CPT increased pupil diameter, blood pressure and heart rate, and the increase only in systolic blood pressure was attenuated by diazepam. CONCLUSIONS: Diazepam-induced sedation is not accompanied by any change in either the sympathetic or parasympathetic influence on the iris.

Diazepam-induced disruption of classically-conditioned fear-potentiation of late-latency auditory evoked potentials is prevented by flumazenil given before, but not after, CS/US pairing.

Classical fear conditioning involves pairing a neutral conditional stimulus (CS) with an aversive unconditional stimulus (US). Subsequent presentation of the CS alone induces fear responses. Acquisition of conditioned fear is thought to involve learning of the CS/US association, followed by memory consolidation. Recently we reported that the N1/P2 auditory evoked potential was enhanced by fear conditioning in humans. Diazepam 10 mg, given before CS/US pairing, prevented subsequent expression of fear potentiation when the response was elicited, 1 week later, in the presence of the CS. In this experiment, we examined whether this effect of diazepam was caused by disruption of the formation of CS/US associations or by disruption of consolidation. The benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil was used to block the effect of diazepam either during the association period or during subsequent consolidation. Forty-two male volunteers (18-35 years) participated in two sessions separated by 7 days. In Session One, they ingested diazepam 10 mg or placebo: 60 minutes later they received flumazenil 1 mg or saline intravenously (i.v.). Then they received 20 presentations of a light (CS), 50% of which terminated with electric shock (US). This was followed by a second infusion of flumazenil or saline. Subjects received placebo/saline/saline (Group 1), diazepam/saline/saline (Group 2), diazepam/flumazenil/saline (Group 3) and diazepam/saline/flumazenil (Group 4). In Session Two, the CS was presented without the US; 50% of CS presentations terminated with a sound pulse; an equal number of sound pulses were presented without the CS. Auditory evoked potentials were recorded at Cz. In Session Two, CS presentation enhanced the auditory N1/P2 potential in placebo-treated subjects (Group 1). This enhancement was prevented by diazepam (Group 2). Flumazenil reversed diazepam's effect on fear potentiation if it was administered before conditioning (Group 3), but not if it was administered afterwards (Group 4). The results confirm that diazepam prevents the acquisition of fear conditioning in humans, and suggest that it disrupts the formation of CS/US associations, rather than the consolidation of fear memory.

Comparison of diphenhydramine and modafinil on arousal and autonomic functions in healthy volunteers.

Arousal is regulated by the interplay between wakefulness- and sleep-promoting nuclei. Major wakefulness-promoting nuclei are the histaminergic tuberomamillary nucleus (TMN) of the hypothalamus and the noradrenergic locus coeruleus (LC) of the pons, which also play a role in autonomic regulation. First generation antihistamines, such as diphenhydramine, are likely to cause sedation by blocking excitatory H1 histamine receptors in the cerebral cortex, and the anti-narcolepsy drug modafinil may promote wakefulness by activating the locus coeruleus. We compared the effects of single doses of diphenhydramine (75 mg) and modafinil (200 mg) on arousal and autonomic functions in 16 healthy male volunteers, using a placebo-controlled, balanced, double-blind design. Arousal was assessed by critical flicker fusion frequency (CFFF), visual analogue scales (VAS) and pupillary fatigue waves (Pupillographic Sleepiness Test (PST)). Autonomic functions measured included resting pupil diameter, light and darkness reflex responses, blood pressure, heart rate and salivation. Data were analysed with ANOVA, with multiple comparisons. Diphenhydramine had sedative effects as shown by reductions in CFFF, VAS alertness ratings and increases of the indices of pupillary fatigue. Modafinil had alerting effects as indicated by reductions in the measures of pupillary fatigue. Comparison of pre-post medication changes in pupil diameter showed a decrease after diphenhydramine and an increase after modafinil. Diphenhydramine reduced salivation, and modafinil increased systolic blood pressure. In conclusion, diphenhydramine and modafinil evoked opposite effects on arousal and sympathetic functions, which are likely to reflect their interaction with the central histaminergic and noradrenergic systems. Hyposalivation by diphenhydramine is likely to be due to its additional anticholinergic property.

Comparison of pramipexole and amisulpride on alertness, autonomic and endocrine functions in healthy volunteers.

RATIONALE: In a previous study in healthy volunteers, the anti-Parkinsonian drug pramipexole caused sedation and pupil dilatation, consistent with the stimulation of inhibitory D(2)/D(3) autoreceptors on the ventral tegmental area dopaminergic neurones. The sedation may be related to the removal of the dopaminergic excitation of the locus coeruleus (via the meso-coerulear pathway), whereas the pupil dilatation may be due to the removal of the dopaminergic excitation of the Edinger-Westphal nucleus (via a putative meso-pupillomotor pathway). OBJECTIVES: We investigated the hypothesis that amisulpride, a D(2)/D(3) receptor antagonist, would have effects opposite to those of pramipexole on alertness, pupillary and endocrine functions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pramipexole (0.5 mg), amisulpride (50 mg), and their combination were administered to 16 healthy males in a balanced, cross-over, double-blind design. Tests included measures of alertness (Pupillographic Sleepiness Test, critical flicker fusion frequency, visual analogue scales), pupillary functions (resting pupil diameter, light and darkness reflex responses), non-pupillary autonomic functions (heart rate, blood pressure, salivation, core temperature), and endocrine functions [blood concentrations of prolactin, growth hormone (GH) and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH)]. Data were analysed by ANOVA. RESULTS: Pramipexole reduced alertness and pupillary light reflex response amplitude, tended to reduce core temperature, reduced prolactin levels and increased GH levels. Amisulpride reduced pupil diameter, increased the amplitude of the light reflex response and prolactin and TSH levels. CONCLUSIONS: The opposite effects of pramipexole and amisulpride on alertness, pupillary function and pituitary hormone levels are consistent with their interactions with inhibitory D(2)/D(3) receptors on VTA neurones and in the tuberoinfundibular system.

Comparison of pramipexole and modafinil on arousal, autonomic, and endocrine functions in healthy volunteers.

The noradrenergic locus coeruleus is a major wakefulness-promoting nucleus of the brain, which is also involved in the regulation of autonomic and endocrine functions. The activity of the locus coeruleus is believed to be tonically enhanced by a mesocoerulear dopaminergic pathway arising from the ventral tegmental area of the midbrain. Both modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting drug, and pramipexole, a D(2)/D(3)receptor agonist with sedative properties, may act on this pathway, with modafinil increasing and pramipexole decreasing locus coeruleus activity. The aim of this study was to compare the two drugs on alertness, autonomic and endocrine functions in healthy volunteers. Pramipexole (0.5mg), modafinil (200mg), and their combination were administered to 16 healthy males in a double-blind, placebo-controlled design. Methods included tests of alertness (pupillographic sleepiness test, critical flicker fusion frequency, visual analogue scales), autonomic functions (resting pupil diameter, light and darkness reflex responses, heart rate, blood pressure, salivation, core temperature), and endocrine functions (blood concentrations of prolactin, growth hormone, and thyroid stimulating hormone). Data were analysed by ANOVA. Pramipexole reduced alertness, caused pupil dilatation, increased heart rate, reduced prolactin and thyroid stimulating hormone, and increased growth hormone level. Modafinil caused small increases in blood pressure and core temperature, and reduced prolactin levels. The sedative effect of pramipexole and the autonomic effects of modafinil are consistent with altered activity in the mesocoerulear pathway; the pupil dilatation following pramipexole suggests reduced dopaminergic excitation of the Edinger-Westphal nucleus.

Why patients with Alzheimer's disease may show increased sensitivity to tropicamide eye drops: role of locus coeruleus.

RATIONALE: Patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease (AD) may show increased sensitivity to tropicamide, a muscarinic cholinoceptor antagonist. AD is associated with a severe loss of noradrenergic neurones in the locus coeruleus (LC), which can be "switched off" experimentally by the alpha(2)-adrenoceptor agonist clonidine. The possibility arises that increased pupillary sensitivity to tropicamide in AD may be due to diminished LC activity. OBJECTIVE: To examine the hypothesis that clonidine may potentiate tropicamide-evoked mydriasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen healthy male volunteers participated in two experimental sessions (0.2 mg clonidine or placebo) conducted 1 week apart. In each session tropicamide (0.01% 10 microl x 2) was applied to the left eye and artificial tear (10 microl x 2) was applied to the right eye. Pupillary functions (resting pupil diameter and light and darkness reflexes), alertness and non-pupillary autonomic functions (blood pressure, heart rate, core temperature and salivary output) were measured. Data were analysed by ANOVA, with multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Tropicamide increased resting pupil diameter, velocity and amplitude of the darkness reflex response, and decreased recovery time of the light reflex response. Clonidine affected all these pupillary measures in the opposite direction with the exception of the recovery time. The mydriatic response to tropicamide was potentiated by pre-treatment with clonidine. Clonidine reduced critical flicker fusion frequency, subjective alertness, blood pressure, salivation and temperature. CONCLUSIONS: The potentiation of tropicamide-evoked pupil dilatation by clonidine may be due to the abolition of the increase in parasympathetically mediated pupil constriction due to reduced LC activity.

Sensitivity of late-latency auditory and somatosensory evoked potentials to threat of electric shock and the sedative drugs diazepam and diphenhydramine in human volunteers.

Late-latency auditory and somatosensory evoked potentials are sensitive to some centrally acting drugs and to certain psychological interventions. In this experiment we compared the effects of acute doses of a benzodiazepine, diazepam and an H(1) histamine receptor-blocking sedative, diphenhydramine, on auditory and somatosensory evoked potentials within the latency range 100-500 ms in a fear conditioning paradigm. Twelve healthy males (18-30 years) participated in three sessions at weekly intervals in which they received diazepam 10mg, diphenhydramine 75 mg and placebo in a balanced, double-blind, crossover protocol. One hundred and twenty min after diphenhydramine or 60 min after diazepam, they underwent an 8 min recording period in which auditory evoked potentials elicited by 40 ms, 95 dB[A], 1 kHz tones, and somatosensory evoked potentials elicited by a mildly painful electric shock (1.8 mA, 50 ms) were recorded at Cz (vertex). Each session consisted of four blocks of trials in which either the sound pulse or the shock was presented. Alternate blocks were designated SAFE or THREAT ('context' conditions); in THREAT blocks subjects were warned that shocks would be delivered via electrodes placed on the wrist (electrodes were removed during SAFE blocks). In one SAFE and one THREAT block, the sound stimuli and shocks (shocks were delivered only in the THREAT block) were preceded by a 2 s conditioned stimulus (CS: a red light) ('cue' condition). Diazepam, but not diphenhydramine, reduced the amplitude of the P2 auditory evoked potential. The THREAT context was associated with increased N1 and reduced N2 potential amplitudes. The CS had no effect on the amplitudes, but markedly reduced the latencies of the N1, P2 and N2 potentials under the THREAT condition. Diazepam reduced the amplitudes of the somatosensory potential evoked by the shock; the CS shortened the latencies of the later components of the response. Diazepam and diphenhydramine were approximately equi-sedative in the doses used in this experiment, as judged by visual analogue self-rating scales. The results indicate that the suppression of late-latency auditory and somatosensory evoked potentials by diazepam is not simply a reflection of sedation. Late-latency evoked potentials can be modified by an aversive CS, but the components that are sensitive to the CS are different from those that are sensitive to diazepam.

Diazepam suppresses the acquisition but not the expression of 'fear-potentiation' of the acoustic startle response in man.

Sudden auditory stimuli elicit a short-latency muscular response (acoustic startle response) which is enhanced during presentation of a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus (CS) that has previously been paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) ('fear-potentiation'). In rodents, acute treatment with benzodiazepines blocks both the acquisition of fear-potentiation and the expression of fear-potentiation induced by prior exposure to CS/US pairing. We examined the effect of diazepam on the acquisition and expression of fear-potentiation of the acoustic startle response in man. Forty-six male volunteers (18-30 years) participated in two sessions separated by 7 days. In session 1, they were exposed to 20 2-s presentations of a light (CS), 50% of which terminated with an electric shock to the wrist (1.8 mA, 50 ms: US). Somatosensory potentials evoked by the US were recorded from the scalp at Cz, and skin conductance responses from electrodes taped to the second and fourth fingers. In session 2, the CS was presented 20 times without the US; a random 50% of CS presentations terminated with a sound pulse (40-ms 115-dB 1-kHz); an equal number of sound pulses was presented without the CS. Electromyographic responses of the orbicularis oculi muscle to the acoustic stimuli were recorded from electrodes placed on the lower eyelid, late-latency auditory evoked potentials were recorded at Cz, and skin conductance responses from electrodes taped to the second and fourth fingers. In each session, alertness was measured using visual analogue self-rating scales and critical flicker fusion frequency. Subjects received placebo or diazepam 10mg in the two sessions in a double-blind protocol: group 1 (n 12) placebo/placebo; group 2 (n 11) placebo/diazepam; group 3 (n 12) diazepam/placebo; group 4 (n 11) diazepam/diazepam. Diazepam reduced alertness as measured by visual-analogue self-rating scales and critical flicker fusion frequency. In session 1, diazepam reduced the amplitude of the somatosensory potentials and skin conductance responses evoked by the CS. In session 2, the acoustic startle response, the N1/P2 auditory evoked response and the skin conductance response evoked by the sound stimuli were enhanced in the presence of the CS. This fear-potentiation was attenuated in subjects who received diazepam in session 1, but was not affected by the treatment given in session 2. The results indicate that diazepam blocks the acquisition of fear-potentiation of startle responses in man, as in animals, but does not prevent the expression of a previously learned response.

Does modafinil activate the locus coeruleus in man? Comparison of modafinil and clonidine on arousal and autonomic functions in human volunteers.

RATIONALE: Modafinil is a wakefulness-promoting drug which is likely to activate some wakefulness-promoting and/or inhibit sleep-promoting neurones in the brain. The locus coeruleus (LC) is a wakefulness-promoting noradrenergic nucleus whose activity can be "switched off" by the alpha2-adrenoceptor agonist clonidine, leading to sedative and sympatholytic effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare the effects of single doses of modafinil and clonidine on arousal and autonomic functions in human volunteers. METHODS: Sixteen healthy male volunteers participated in four experimental sessions (modafinil 200 mg; clonidine 0.2 mg; modafinil 200 mg + clonidine 0.2 mg; placebo) at weekly intervals, according to a balanced double-blind protocol. Arousal [pupillary "fatigue waves" (PFW), critical flicker fusion frequency, self-ratings of alertness] and autonomic functions (pupil diameter, pupillary light and darkness reflex responses, blood pressure, heart rate, salivation) were recorded. Data were analyzed with ANOVA, with multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Clonidine reduced subjective alertness, pupil diameter, the initial velocity and amplitude of the darkness reflex response, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and salivation, prolonged the recovery time of the light reflex response and increased PFW. Modafinil reduced PFW, increased pupil diameter and the initial velocity of the darkness reflex response and tended to reduce the effect of clonidine on pupil diameter and PFW. Modafinil had no effect on non-pupillary autonomic functions. CONCLUSIONS: Clonidine exerted sympatholytic and sedative effects, whereas modafinil had sympathomimetic and some alerting effects. Modafinil may activate noradrenergic neurones in the LC involved in arousal and pupillary control, without affecting extracoerulear noradrenergic neurones involved in cardiovascular and salivary regulation.

Effects of lorazepam on fear-potentiated startle responses in man.

Sudden intense sensory stimuli elicit a cascade of involuntary responses, including a short-latency skeletal muscular response ('eyeblink startle response') and longer-latency autonomic responses. These responses are enhanced when subjects anticipate an aversive event compared to periods when subjects are resting ('fear potentiation'). It has been reported previously that the anxiolytic diazepam can suppress fear-potentiation of the eyeblink startle response in human volunteers. The present experiment aimed to confirm and extend these observations by examining the effect of another benzodiazepine, lorazepam, on the eyeblink and skin conductance components of the acoustic startle, and on fear-potentiation of these responses. Eighteen male volunteers participated in three weekly sessions in which they received oral treatment with placebo, lorazepam (1 mg) and lorazepam (2 mg), according to a balanced three-period, crossover, double-blind design. Two hours after ingestion of the treatments, electromyographic responses of the orbicularis oculi muscle and skin conductance responses were evoked by sound pulses during alternating periods in which the threat of an electric shock (electrodes attached to the subject's wrist) was present (THREAT) and absent (SAFE). The THREAT condition was associated with significant increase in the amplitude of the electromyographic (EMG) and skin conductance responses; there were also increases in baseline skin conductance, the number and amplitude of 'spontaneous' skin conductance fluctuations and self-rated anxiety. Lorazepam attenuated the effect of THREAT on self-rated anxiety and on the amplitude of the EMG response, but had no significant effect on fear-potentiation of the skin conductance responses. These results extend previous findings of the effect of diazepam on the fear-potentiated eyeblink startle response to lorazepam, and suggest that fear-potentiation of the later autonomic component of the startle response may be less sensitive to benzodiazepines than the fear-potentiated eyeblink response and self-rated anxiety.

Effects of quetiapine and haloperidol on prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle (eyeblink) response and the N1/P2 auditory evoked response in man.

Contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscle in response to a sudden loud sound (acoustic startle response) and the N1/P2 component of the auditory evoked potential are both attenuated when a brief low-intensity stimulus is presented 30-500 ms before the 'startle-eliciting' stimulus (PPI). Here, we report the effects of the 'atypical' antipsychotic drug quetiapine and the 'conventional' antipsychotic haloperidol on these responses. Sixteen males (aged 19-38 years) participated in four sessions at 7-day intervals, in which they received quetiapine 12.5 mg, quetiapine 25 mg, haloperidol 3 mg and placebo, according to a balanced double-blind design. Electromyographic (EMG) responses of the orbicularis oculi muscle and N1/P2 auditory evoked potentials were recorded in a 20-min session, 2 h after treatment. Subjects received 40 trials in which 1-kHz sounds were presented: (i) 40 ms, 115 dB ('pulse alone' trials) and (ii) 40 ms, 85 dB, followed after 120 ms by 40 ms, 115 dB ('prepulse/pulse' trials). Mean amplitudes of the EMG response and the N1/P2 potential were derived from the pulse-alone trials and, in each case, percentage PPI was calculated. Serum prolactin was measured after each treatment, and autonomic (heart rate, blood pressure, salivation) and psychological (visual analogue self-ratings of mood and alertness, critical flicker fusion frequency) measures were taken before and after each treatment. Quetiapine 12.5 mg and 25 mg significantly reduced the amplitude of the EMG response without altering its inhibition by prepulses; haloperidol had no effect on EMG response amplitude or PPI. Neither drug affected N1/P2 amplitude or PPI of this response. Quetiapine, but not haloperidol, reduced subjective alertness and critical flicker fusion frequency. Haloperidol, but not quetiapine, elevated serum prolactin level. The ability of quetiapine to attenuate the startle response may reflect its sedative action.

Effects of ketanserin and haloperidol on prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle (eyeblink) response and the N1/P2 auditory evoked response in man.

Contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscle in response to a sudden loud sound (acoustic startle response) and the N1/P2 component of the auditory evoked potential are both attenuated when a brief low-intensity stimulus is presented 30-500 ms before the 'startle-eliciting' stimulus (prepulse inhibition). Here, we report the effects of the serotonin (5-HT)2 receptor antagonist ketanserin and the D2 dopamine receptor blocking antipsychotic drug haloperidol on these responses. Fifteen males (aged 18-35 years) participated in four sessions at 7-day intervals, in which they received ketanserin 20 mg, ketanserin 40 mg, haloperidol 3 mg and placebo, according to a balanced double-blind design. Electromyographic (EMG) responses of the orbicularis oculi muscle and N1/P2 auditory evoked potentials were recorded in a 20-min session, 3 h after ingestion of haloperidol or 1 h after ingestion of ketanserin. Subjects received 40 trials in which 1-kHz sounds were presented: (i) 40 ms, 115 dB ('pulse alone' trials), and (ii) 40 ms, 85 dB, followed after 120 ms by 40 ms, 115 dB ('prepulse/pulse' trials). Mean amplitudes of the EMG response and the N1/P2 potential were derived from the pulse-alone trials and, in each case, percentage prepulse inhibition was calculated. Serum prolactin was measured after each treatment, and autonomic (heart rate, blood pressure, salivation) and psychological (visual analogue self-ratings of mood and alertness, critical flicker fusion frequency) measures were taken before and after each treatment. Ketanserin 40 mg significantly reduced the amplitude of the EMG response and both doses of ketanserin significantly suppressed prepulse inhibition of the response; haloperidol had no effect on EMG response amplitude or prepulse inhibition. Neither drug affected N1/P2 amplitude or prepulse inhibition of this response. Ketanserin, but not haloperidol, reduced subjective alertness and critical flicker fusion frequency. Haloperidol, but not ketanserin, elevated serum prolactin level. These results confirm that prepulse inhibition of the startle response and of the N1/P2 complex have different pharmacological sensitivities. The ability of ketanserin to attenuate the startle response may reflect its sedative action, as other drugs with sedative properties have also been found to attenuate the startle response in man. The ability of ketanserin to suppress prepulse inhibition of the startle response is consistent with previous evidence for the involvement of 5-HTergic mechanisms in the regulation of prepulse inhibition in man.

Comparison of clozapine and haloperidol on some autonomic and psychomotor functions, and on serum prolactin concentration, in healthy subjects.

AIMS: To compare the autonomic, neuroendocrine and psychomotor effects of single doses of the 'atypical' antipsychotic clozapine and the 'classical' antipsychotic haloperidol, in healthy male volunteers. METHODS: Clozapine (50 mg), haloperidol (3 mg) and placebo were administered to 12 healthy male volunteers at weekly intervals, according to a balanced double-blind design. Resting pupil diameter, salivary output, heart rate, blood pressure, plasma prolactin concentration, critical flicker fusion frequency and subjective 'alertness', 'contentedness' and 'anxiety' were measured at baseline and 2, 3, 4 and 5 h after drug ingestion. Data were analysed by analysis of variance with individual comparisons (Dunnett's test) with a significance criterion of P < 0.05. RESULTS: Significant treatment effects (difference from placebo [mean, 95% CI] 5 h after drug ingestion) were as follows: clozapine reduced pupil diameter (mm; -3.02 [-3.56, -2.47]), salivary output (g; -0.34 [-0.60, -0.08]), mean arterial blood pressure (mm Hg; -8.7 [-14.3, -3.1]), critical flicker fusion frequency (Hz; -3.26 [-3.94, -2.58]), and subjectively-rated 'alertness' (mm; -20.94 [-29.21, -12.67]) and 'contentedness' (mm; -12.98 [-17.90, -8.06]), whereas haloperidol increased prolactin concentration (mU l(-1); 301.3 [196.7, 405.8]) and caused small reductions in pupil diameter (mm; -0.68 [-1.23, -0.14]), mean arterial blood pressure (mm Hg; -7.0 [-12.6, -1.4]) and critical flicker fusion frequency (Hz; -1.15 [-1.83, -0.47]). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the antipsychotics are in agreement with their receptor binding profiles: alpha(1)-adrenoceptor blockade by clozapine may contribute to reductions in pupil diameter, salivation, mean arterial blood pressure and sedation, and muscarinic cholinoceptor blockade by the drug may underlie the reduction in salivation. Conversely, D(2) dopamine receptor blockade by haloperidol is likely to be responsible for the increase in prolactin secretion evoked by the drug.

Comparison of the effects of nadolol and bisoprolol on the isoprenaline-evoked dilatation of the dorsal hand vein in man.

AIMS: We attempted to explore the possible differential involvement of beta-adrenoceptor subtypes in the dilator response of the human dorsal hand vein to isoprenaline by examining the ability of bisoprolol, a selective beta1-adrenoceptor antagonist, and nadolol, a nonselective beta1/beta2-adrenoceptor antagonist, to antagonize the response. METHODS: Twelve healthy male volunteers participated in four weekly sessions. In the preliminary session a dose-response curve to the vasoconstrictor effect of phenylephrine was constructed and the dose producing 50-75% maximal response was determined for each individual. In each of the remaining three (treatment) sessions, nadolol (40 mg), bisoprolol (5 mg) or placebo was ingested, and isoprenaline hydrochloride (3.33-1000 ng min(-1)) was infused locally into the dorsal hand vein along with a constant dose of phenylephrine hydrochloride (to preconstrict the vein) 2 h after the ingestion of the drugs. Changes in vein diameter were monitored with the dorsal hand vein compliance technique. Subjects were allocated to treatment session according to a double-blind balanced cross-over design. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were also measured. RESULTS: Isoprenaline produced dose-dependent venodilatation which was antagonized by nadolol but remained unaffected by bisoprolol (ANOVA with repeated measures: P < 0.025; Dunnett's test: placebo vs nadolol, P < 0.01; placebo vs bisoprolol, P = NS). Mean log ED50 (ng min-1) was significantly increased in the presence of nadolol and remained unchanged in the presence of bisoprolol (ANOVA, P < 0.025; Dunnett's test: placebo vs nadolol, P < 0.005; placebo vs bisoprolol, P = NS; differences between mean log ED50 [95% CI]: placebo vs bisoprolol -0.11 [-0.38, 0.16], placebo vs nadolol 0.32[0.09, 0.72], bisoprolol vs nadolol -0.43 [-0.71, -0.15]). Mean Emax did not differ in the three treatment conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The failure of bisoprolol to attenuate isoprenaline-evoked venodilatation in the human dorsal hand vein argues against the involvement of a beta1-adrenoceptor-mediated component in the isoprenaline-evoked venodilatory responses. The possibility cannot be excluded that the consequences of beta1-adrenoceptor blockade by bisoprolol might have been obscured by a possible venodilator effect of bisoprolol.

Effects of clonidine and diazepam on prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response and the N1/P2 auditory evoked potential in man.

Contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscle in response to a sudden loud sound (acoustic startle response) and the N1/P2 component of the auditory evoked potential are both attenuated when a brief low-intensity stimulus is presented 30-500 ms before the 'startle-eliciting' stimulus (prepulse inhibition). We examined the effects of two sedative/anxiolytic drugs, diazepam and clonidine, on prepulse inhibition of these two responses in healthy volunteers. Fifteen males (aged 18-35 years) participated in three sessions in which they received oral doses of placebo, diazepam 10 mg and clonidine 0.2 mg according to a balanced double-blind protocol. Thirty-minute simultaneous recordings of the electromyographic (EMG) responses of the orbicularis oculi muscle of the right eye and the vertex auditory evoked potentials took place 120 min after ingestion of clonidine and 60 min after ingestion of diazepam. Sound stimuli (1 kHz) were presented in 60 trials separated by variable intervals (mean 25 s): (i) 40-ms 115-dB ('pulse alone', 20 trials); (ii) 40-ms 85-dB (20 trials); (iii) 40-ms 85-dB, followed after 120 ms by 40-ms 115-dB ('prepulse/pulse', 20 trials). Mean amplitudes of the EMG response and the N1/P2 potential were derived from the pulse-alone trials and, in each case, percentage prepulse inhibition was calculated. The amplitude of the EMG response was significantly reduced both by diazepam and by clonidine; neither drug significantly altered prepulse inhibition of the EMG response. Diazepam, but not clonidine, significantly reduced the amplitude of the N1/P2 potential; neither drug significantly affected prepulse inhibition of the N1/P2 potential. Both drugs reduced self-rated alertness and anxiety, and systolic blood pressure; clonidine, but not diazepam reduced diastolic blood pressure and salivation. The results confirm previous findings that sedative drugs can suppress the startle response without affecting prepulse inhibition of this response, and provide new information on the effects of these drugs on the N1/P2 potential and its inhibition by prepulses.

Effects of haloperidol and clozapine on prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response and the N1/P2 auditory evoked potential in man.

Contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscle in response to a sudden loud sound (acoustic startle response) and the N1/P2 component of the auditory evoked potential are both attenuated when a brief low-intensity stimulus is presented 30-500 ms before the 'startle-eliciting' stimulus (prepulse inhibition). Here, we report the effects of the 'conventional' antipsychotic drug haloperidol and the 'atypical' antipsychotic clozapine on these responses. Fifteen males (aged 19-54 years) participated in four sessions at 7-day intervals, in which they received clozapine 3 mg, clozapine 6 mg, haloperidol 3 mg and placebo, according to a balanced double-blind design. Electromyographic (EMG) responses of the orbicularis oculi muscle and N1/P2 auditory evoked potentials were recorded in a 20-min session, 3 h after treatment. Subjects received 40 trials in which 1-kHz sounds were presented: (i) 40 ms, 115 dB ('pulse alone' trials) and (ii) 40 ms, 85 dB, followed after 120 ms by 40 ms, 115 dB ('prepulse/pulse' trials). Mean amplitudes of the EMG response and the N1/P2 potential were derived from the pulse-alone trials and, in each case, percentage prepulse inhibition was calculated. Serum prolactin was measured after each treatment, and autonomic (heart rate, blood pressure, salivation) and psychological (visual analogue self-ratings of mood and alertness, critical flicker fusion frequency) measures were taken before and after each treatment. Clozapine 6 mg significantly reduced the amplitude of the EMG response without altering its inhibition by prepulses. Clozapine 6 mg did not affect the amplitude of the N1/P2 potential, but significantly attenuated prepulse inhibition of that response. Clozapine 3 mg and haloperidol had no significant effect on either response. Clozapine 3 mg and 6 mg, but not haloperidol, reduced subjective alertness and critical flicker fusion frequency. Clozapine 6 mg reduced salivation. Haloperidol, but not clozapine, elevated serum prolactin levels. These results confirm that prepulse inhibition of the startle response and of the N1/P2 complex have different pharmacological sensitivities. The abililty of clozapine to attenuate the startle response may reflect its sedative action. The basis of the abililty of clozapine to suppress prepulse inhibition of the N1/P2 potential remains uncertain.