Effects of a single, oral 60 mg caffeine dose on attention in healthy adult subjects.

Caffeine induces positive effects on sustained attention, although studies assessing the acute effects of low caffeine dose (<75 mg) on sustained attention are limited and use short-term tests. Therefore, we investigated the acute effects of a 60 mg dose of caffeine on sustained attention in tests lasting up to 45 minutes using 82 low or non-caffeine-consuming healthy male ( n=41) and female ( n=41) adults aged between 40 and 60 years. Vigilance was measured using Mackworth Clock test, Rapid Visual Information Processing Test, adaptive tracking test, saccadic eye movement and attention switch test. Effects on mood and fatigue were analysed using Bond and Lader and Caffeine Research visual analogue scales, and Samn-Perelli questionnaire. Saliva sampling was performed for both compliance and caffeine pharmacokinetic analysis. Administration of a 60 mg caffeine dose resulted in a significant improvement in sustained attention compared with the placebo. Also a significantly improved peak saccadic velocity and reaction time performance was found, and decreased error rate. Significantly increased feelings of alertness, contentment and overall mood after caffeine treatment compared with placebo were observed. This study demonstrated that in healthy adult subjects oral administration of a single 60 mg caffeine dose elicited a clear enhancement of sustained attention and alertness, measured both in multiple objective performances and in subjective scales.

A randomised placebo-controlled trial to differentiate the acute cognitive and mood effects of chlorogenic acid from decaffeinated coffee.

UNLABELLED: In the current study, sixty healthy older adults aged 50 years or older, and who were light to moderate coffee drinkers, were administered 6g of a decaffeinated green coffee blend (NESCAFÉ Green Blend coffee; GB) or 540mg pure chlorogenic acids (CGA) or placebo in a double-blind acute cross-over design, with cognitive and mood assessments pre-dose, 40-mins and 120-mins post-dose. The primary outcome measure was accuracy in Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVIP). Secondary cognitive outcome measures included RVIP reaction time as well as Inspection time (IT), Jensen Box decision/reaction times, serial subtraction and N-Back working memory. Secondary mood measures included Bond-Lader and caffeine Research visual analogue scales (VAS). No significant treatment effects were found for the primary outcome measure, although significant effects were found amongst secondary measures. Overall, CGA in isolation was not found to significantly improve cognitive function relative to placebo whereas the GB was found to improve sustained attention as measured by the N-Back task in comparison to placebo overall (t=2.45,p=.05), as well as decision time on a 2-choice reaction time task (Jensen box) in comparison to placebo at 40 minutes post-dose (t=2.45,p=.05). Similarly, GB was found to improve alertness on both the Bond-Lader at 120 minutes relative to CGA (t=2.86, p=0.02) and the caffeine Research VAS relative to CGA (t=3.09, p=0.009) and placebo (t=2.75,p=0.02) at 120 minutes post-dose. Both the GB and CGA were also found to significantly improve symptoms of headache at 120 minutes relative to placebo (t=2.51,p=0.03 and t=2.43,p=.04 respectively), whilst there was a trend towards a reduction in jitteriness with GB and CGA in comparison to placebo at 40 minutes post-dose (t=2.24,p=0.06 and t=2.20,p=0.06 respectively). These findings suggest that the improvements in mood observed with GB, but not the improvements in cognitive function, are likely to some extent to be attributable to CGAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000067976 www.anzctr.org.au.

The effect of d-methamphetamine on simulated driving performance.

OBJECTIVES: Methamphetamine is considered to be one of the most popularly abused drugs by drivers; however, its exact effect on driving and driving behaviour has yet to be thoroughly investigated. This being despite methamphetamine's increased prevalence in injured and deceased drivers. METHODS: Twenty healthy recreational illicit stimulant users (10 male and 10 female), aged between 21 and 32 years (mean = 25.4 years, SD = 3.3 years) attended two testing sessions involving oral consumption of 0.42 mg/kg d-methamphetamine or a matching placebo. The drug administration was counter-balanced, double-blind, and medically supervised. At each session driving, performance was assessed 2.5 h post drug administration. RESULTS: d-methamphetamine (0.42 mg/kg) did not significantly impair overall simulated driving performance 2.5 h post drug administration. At the individual driving variable level, participants in the d-methamphetamine condition were observed to be driving slower when an emergency situation occurred (T = 44, p < 0.05), but interestingly, participants in both conditions recorded average speeds in excess of the speed limit (100 km/h) when the emergency situations occurred. The d-methamphetamine condition did also produce four times more infringements where participants did not stop at red traffic light in comparison to the placebo, but this effect was only evident at a trend level (T = 7, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: The findings presented herein suggest that d-methamphetamine administered at the levels supplied did not impair driving performance in a manner consistent with epidemiological evidence. Further research is certainly required to elucidate the effects of various doses of methamphetamine, alone and in combination with other legal and illicit substances.

The effect of d,l-methamphetamine on simulated driving performance.

RATIONALE: Illicit drugs such as methamphetamine are commonly abused drugs that have also been observed to be prevalent in drivers injured in road accidents. The exact effect of methamphetamine or its specific isomers on driving and driving behaviour have yet to be thoroughly investigated. METHODS: Twenty healthy recreational illicit stimulant users (ten males, ten females), aged between 21 and 34 years (mean = 24.3 years, SD = 3.4 years), attended two testing sessions involving oral consumption of 0.42 mg/kg d,l-methamphetamine or a matching placebo. The drug administration was counterbalanced, double-blind, and medically supervised. At each session, driving performance was assessed 2.5 h post-drug administration. RESULTS: Mean blood and saliva d,l-methamphetamine concentrations of approximately 90 and 400 ng/ml, respectively, at 2 h and 95 and 475 ng/ml at 3 h were observed. These levels of d,l-methamphetamine were found not to significantly impair, or improve, driving performance at the 2.5-h post-drug administration time point. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study illustrate that d,l-methamphetamine has no significant effect on simulated driving performance.

Subliminal display of action words interferes with motor planning: a combined EEG and kinematic study.

Recent evidence has shown that processing action-related language and motor action share common neural representations to a point that the two processes can interfere when performed concurrently. To support the assumption that language-induced motor activity contributes to action word understanding, the present study aimed at ruling out that this activity results from mental imagery of the movements depicted by the words. For this purpose, we examined cross-talk between action word processing and an arm reaching movement, using words that were presented too fast to be consciously perceived (subliminally). Encephalogram (EEG) and movement kinematics were recorded. EEG recordings of the "Readiness potential" ("RP", indicator of motor preparation) revealed that subliminal displays of action verbs during movement preparation reduced the RP and affected the subsequent reaching movement. The finding that motor processes were modulated by language processes despite the fact that words were not consciously perceived, suggests that cortical structures that serve the preparation and execution of motor actions are indeed part of the (action) language processing network.

The acute effects of d-amphetamine and methamphetamine on attention and psychomotor performance.

RATIONALE: It is not clear how the deleterious effects of amphetamines on driving performance are mediated in terms of select cognitive processes. OBJECTIVES: The current three separate experiments assessed the acute effects of an oral dose of either 0.42-mg/kg d-amphetamine, d,l-methamphetamine and d-methamphetamine on driving-related cognitive functions in a total of 60 healthy non-fatigued adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three separate repeated measures counterbalanced, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs were employed in which 20 volunteers completed two treatment conditions, either d-amphetamine, d,l-methamphetamine or d-methamphetamine and placebo. Performance was assessed on a range of attentional, psychomotor and perceptual speed tasks. RESULTS: Mean blood concentrations at 120-, 170- and 240-min postdrug administration were 83, 98 and 96 ng/ml, respectively, for d-amphetamine, 90, 95 and 105 ng/ml, respectively, for d,l-methamphetamine and 72, 67 and 59 ng/ml, respectively, for d-methamphetamine. The amphetamines, in general, improved various aspects of attention (Digit Vigilance, Digit Symbol Substitution Test and Movement Estimation Performance) with some evidence to suggest possible enhancement in psychomotor functioning (Tracking ability) and perceptual speed (Inspection Time). CONCLUSIONS: The current series of studies primarily provides evidence of low-level amphetamine-related enhancement of function; however, it also provides evidence of less conservative movement estimation that might contribute to amphetamine-related road fatalities.

An evaluation of the sensitivity of the standardised field sobriety tests to detect the presence of amphetamine.

RATIONALE: The Standardised Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), designed and validated to assess impairment associated with alcohol intoxication, are currently being employed by the Victoria Police (Australia) for the identification of driving impairment associated with drugs other than alcohol. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the SFSTs are a sensitive measure for identifying the presence of dexamphetamine and methamphetamine. METHODS: Three studies each employed a repeated-measures, counterbalanced, double-blind placebo-controlled design. In each study, 20 healthy volunteers completed two treatment conditions: either 0.42 mg/kg d,l-dexamphetamine and placebo, 0.42 mg/kg d,l-methamphetamine and placebo, or 0.42 mg/kg d-methamphetamine and placebo. Performance was assessed using the SFSTs, consisting of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the Walk and Turn test, and the One Leg Stand test. Blood and saliva samples were obtained before and immediately after the administration of the SFSTs (120 and 170 min post drug administration). RESULTS: At 120 and 170 min post drug administration, d,l-dexamphetamine blood levels were 83.16 and 98.42 ng/ml, respectively; d,l-methamphetamine levels were 90 and 95 ng/ml, respectively; and d-methamphetamine blood levels were 72 and 67 ng/ml, respectively. None of the three amphetamine doses impaired performance on the SFSTs. Using the SFSTs, the presence of dexamphetamine was identified in 5% of cases, d-methamphetamine in 5%, and d,l-methamphetamine in 0% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Under these conditions, the SFSTs are not a sensitive measure for detecting the presence of low levels of amphetamine.