Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive performance and cholinergic transmission: influence of muscarinic and nicotinic receptor blockade

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The cholinergic system is essential in mediating cognitive processes. Although there has been extensive research regarding cholinergic receptor subsystems, the specific contribution of the muscarinic and nicotinic receptor system to cognitive processes still has not been sufficiently explored. In the present study, we examined the selective contribution of muscarinic and nicotinic antagonism to cognitive performance in healthy human subjects. A single-blind, double-dummy, time-elapsed, repeated measures cross-over design was used on 15 healthy males. Subjects completed a neuropsychological test battery assessing a wide range of cognitive domains after 0.4 mg scopolamine (intravenous), 0.2 mg/kg mecamylamine (max. 15 mg; oral) or placebo. Subjects were tested under three conditions: placebo/placebo (PP), scopolamine/placebo (SP) and mecamylamine/placebo (MP). Results show that scopolamine significantly impaired the free recall and recognition performance in the verbal learning test. No other cognitive domain was affected, neither by scopolamine nor by mecamylamine. In line with the existing literature, antagonism of muscarinic receptors resulted in specific cognitive impairments, predominantly memory performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aarsland D, Larsen JP, Reinvang I, Aasland AM (1994) Implications for the cholinergic hypothesis in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Brain 117:1377–1384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aschenbrenner S, Tucha O, Lange KW (2000) Regensburger Wortflüssigkeitstest (RWT). Hogrefe Verlag, Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brickenkamp R (1994) Test d2 Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test. 8. ueberarbeitete und neu normierte Auflage. Hogrefe Verlag, Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

  4. Deutsch JA (1971) The cholinergic synapse and the site of memory. Science 174:788–794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ellis JR, Ellis KA, Bartholomeusz CF, Harrison BJ, Wesnes KA, Erskine FF, Vitetta L, Nathan PJ (2006) Muscarinic and nicotinic receptors synergistically modulate working memory and attention in humans. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 9:175–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Everitt BJ, Robbins TW (1997) Central cholinergic system and cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 48:649–684

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Flicker C, Serby M, Ferris SH (1990) Scopolamine effects on memory, language, visuospatial praxis and psychomotoric speed. Psychopharmacology 100:243–250

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Haerting C, Markowitsch HF, Neufeld H, Calabrese P, Deisinger K, Kessler J (1999) WMS-R (Wechsler Gedächtnistest—Revidierte Fassung. Manual). Verlag Hans Huber, Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

  9. Helmstaedter C, Lendt M, Lux S (1990) VLTM: Verbaler Lern- und Merkfähigkeitstest. Manual. Beltz Test GmbH, Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

  10. Koller G, Satzger W, Adam M, Wagner M, Kathmann N, Soyka M, Engel R (2003) Effects of scopolamine on matching to sample paradigm and related tests in human subjects. Neuropsychobiology 48:87–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kopelman MD (1986) The cholinergic neurotransmitter system in human memory and dementia: a review. Q J Exp Psychol 126:37–349

    Google Scholar 

  12. Langmead CJ, Watson J, Reavill C (2008) Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors as CNS drug targets. Pharmacol Ther 117:232–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lehrl S (2005) Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz Intelligenztest, MWT-B. Spitta Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Balingen

    Google Scholar 

  14. Levin ED, McClernon JF, Rezvani AH (2006) Nicotinic effects on cognitive function: behavioral characterization, pharmacological specification and anatomic localization. Psychopharmacology 184:523–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Little JT, Johnson DN, Minichiello M, Weingartner H, Sunderland T (1998) Combined nicotinic and muscarinic blockade in elderly normal volunteers: cognitive, behavioral and physiologic responses. Neuropsychopharmacology 19:60–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mancuso G, Andres P, Ansseau M, Tirelli E (1999) Effects of nicotine administered via a transdermal delivery system on vigilance: a repeated measure study. Psychopharmacology 142:18–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Martin LF, Kem WR, Freedman R (2004) Alpha-7 nicotinic receptor agonists: potential new candidates for the treatment of schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology 174:54–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Newhouse PA, Potter A, Corwin J, Lenox R (1992) Acute nicotinic blockade produces cognitive impairment in normal humans. Psychopharmacology 108:480–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Newhouse PA, Potter A, Corwin J, Lenox R (1994) Age-related effects of the nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine on cognition and behaviour. Neuropsychopharmacology 10:93–107

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Newhouse PA, Potter A, Kelton M, Corwin J (2001) Nicotinic treatment of Alzheimer`s disease. Biol Psychiatry 49:268–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Polster MR (1993) Drug-induced amnesia: implications for cognitive neuropsychological investigations of memory. Psychol Rev 114:477–493

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rasch BH, Born J, Gais S (2006) Combined blockade of cholinergic receptors shifts the brain from stimulus encoding to memory consolidation. J Cogn Neurosci 18:793–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reitan RM (1958) Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills 8:271–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rezvani AH, Levin ED (2001) Cognitive effects of nicotine. Biol Psychiatry 49:258–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Robbins TW, Semple J, Kumar R, Truman MI, Shorter J, Ferraro A, Fox B, McKay G, Matthews K (1997) Effects of scopolamine on delayed-matching-to-sample and paired associates tests of visual memory and learning in human subjects: comparison with diazepam and implications for dementia. Psychopharmacology 134:95–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sacco KA, Germine A, Seyal A, Dudas MM, Vessicchio JC, Krishnan-Sarin S, Jatlow PI, Wexler BE, George TT (2005) Effects of cigarette smoking on spatial working memory and attentional deficits in schizophrenia: involvement of nicotinic receptor mechanisms. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:649–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sarter M, Parikh V (2005) Choline transporters, cholinergic transmission and cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:48–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sherman SJ, Atri A, Hasselmo ME, Stern CE, Howard MW (2003) Scopolamine impairs human recognition memory: data and modeling. Behav Neurosc 117:526–539

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Thiel CM, Friston KJ, Dolan RJ (2002) Cholinergic modulation of experience-dependent plasticity in human auditory cortex. Neuron 35:567–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson JC, Stough C, Ames D, Ritchie C, Nathan PJ (2000) Effects of the nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine on inspection time. Psychopharmacology 150:117–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tucha O, Lange KW (2004) TL-D Turm von London—Deutsche version. Manual. Hogrefe Verlag, Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG—KFO 112).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 30, Aachen, 52074, Germany

    Bianca Voss & Ute Habel

  2. Jülich-Aachen Research Alliance-Translational Brain Medicine (JARA-BRAIN), Aachen, Germany

    Bianca Voss & Ute Habel

  3. Priority Research Centre Brain and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    Renate Thienel

  4. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine 4, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany

    Martina Reske

  5. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Tilo Kircher

Authors
  1. Bianca Voss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renate Thienel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martina Reske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ute Habel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tilo Kircher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bianca Voss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Voss, B., Thienel, R., Reske, M. et al. Cognitive performance and cholinergic transmission: influence of muscarinic and nicotinic receptor blockade. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 260 (Suppl 2), 106–110 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-010-0160-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-010-0160-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation