In a paper publishing online this week in Biological Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison psychology researchers David Devilbiss and Craig Berridge report that Ritalin fine-tunes the functioning of neurons in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) – a brain region involved in attention, decision-making and impulse control – while having few effects outside it.

Because of the potential for addiction and abuse, controversy has swirled for years around the use of stimulants to treat ADHD, especially in children.

Yet, despite their prevalence, we know remarkably little about how these drugs work, says Berridge. In 2006, his team reported that therapeutic doses of Ritalin boosted neurotransmitter levels primarily in the PFC, suggesting a selective targeting of this region of the brain. Since then, he and Devilbiss have focused on how Ritalin acts on PFC neurons to enhance cognition. By helping pinpoint Ritalin’s action in the brain, the study should give drug developers a better road map to follow as they search for safer alternatives.

At the same time, the results support the idea that today’s ADHD drugs may be safer than people think, says Berridge.

Mounting behavioral and neurochemical evidence suggests that clinically relevant doses of Ritalin primarily target the PFC, without affecting brain centers linked to over-arousal and addiction. In other words, Ritalin at low doses doesn’t appear to act like a stimulant at all.

“It’s the higher doses of these drugs that are normally associated with their effects as stimulants, those that increase locomotor activity, impair cognition and target neurotransmitters all over the brain,” says Berridge. “These lower doses are diametrically opposed to that. Instead, they help the PFC better do what it’s supposed to do.”

In the lab, Devilbiss and Berridge studied PFC neurons in rats under a variety of Ritalin doses, including one that improved the animals’ performance in a working memory task of the type that ADHD patients have trouble completing.

Using a sophisticated new system for monitoring many neurons at once through a set of microelectrodes, the scientists observed both the random, spontaneous firings of PFC neurons and their response to stimulation of an important pathway into the PFC, the hippocampus. Much like tiny microphones, the electrodes record a pop every time a neuron fires, Devilbiss explains. Analyzing the complex patterns of “voices” that emerge is challenging but also powerful, because it allows study of neurons on many levels. “Similar to listening to a choir, you can understand the music by listening to individual voices,” says Devilbiss, “or you can listen to the interplay between the voices of the ensemble and how the different voices combine.”

When they listened to individual PFC neurons, the scientists found that while cognition-enhancing doses of Ritalin had little effect on spontaneous activity, the neurons’ sensitivity to signals coming from the hippocampus increased dramatically.  Under higher, stimulatory doses, on the other hand, PFC neurons stopped responding to incoming information.

“This suggests that the therapeutic effects of Ritalin likely stem from this fine-tuning of PFC sensitivity,” says Berridge. “You’re improving the ability of these neurons to respond to behaviorally relevant signals, and that translates into better cognition, attention and working memory.”

Higher doses associated with drug abuse and cognitive impairment, in contrast, impair functioning of the PFC.

More intriguing still were the results that came from tuning into the entire chorus of neurons at once. When groups of neurons were already “singing” together strongly, Ritalin reinforced this coordinated activity. At the same time, the drug weakened activity that wasn’t well coordinated to begin with.

All of this suggests that Ritalin strengthens dominant and important signals within the PFC, while lessening weaker signals that may act as distracters, says Berridge.

Source: http://psychcentral.com

Heidelberg/ New York, 25 June 2008 — Was it good for you too?

Almost half of women interviewed in new study have negative feelings about one-night stands

The sexual and feminist revolutions were supposed to free women to enjoy casual sex just as men always had. Yet according to Professor Anne Campbell from Durham University in the UK, the negative feelings reported by women after one-night stands suggest that they are not well adapted to fleeting sexual encounters. Her findings1 are published online in the June issue of Springer’s journal, Human Nature.

Men are more likely to reproduce and therefore to benefit from numerous short-term partners. For women, however, quality seems to be more important than quantity. Also for women, finding partners of high genetic quality is a stronger motivator than sheer number, and it is commonly believed that women are more willing to have casual sex when there is a chance of forming a long-term relationship.

Professor Campbell looked at whether women have adapted to casual sex by examining their feelings following a one-night stand. If women have adapted, then although they may take part in casual sex less often than men because of their stricter criteria when selecting partners, they should rate the experience positively. To test the theory, a total of 1743 men and women who had experienced a one-night stand were asked to rate both their positive and negative feelings the following morning, in an internet survey.

Overall women’s feelings were more negative than men’s. Eighty per cent of men had overall positive feelings about the experience compared to 54 per cent of women. Men were more likely than women to secretly want their friends to hear about it and to feel successful because the partner was desirable to others. Men also reported greater sexual satisfaction and contentment following the event, as well as a greater sense of well-being and confidence about themselves.

The predominant negative feeling reported by women was regret at having been “used”. Women were also more likely to feel that they had let themselves down and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation if other people found out. Women found the experience less sexually satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, they did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships.

According to Professor Campbell, although women do not rate casual sex positively, the reason they still take part in it may be due to the menstrual cycle changes influencing their sexual motivation. Indeed, during the ovulatory phase (between days 10 to 18 of their cycle), women report increased sexual desire and arousal, with a preference for short-term partners.

Reference
1. Campbell A (2008). The morning after the night before. Affective reactions to one-night stands among mated and unmated women and men. Human Nature. DOI 10.1007/s12110-008-9036-2