Impairments in metacognition, the ability to accurately report one’s performance, are common in patients with psychiatric disorders, where a putative neuromodulatory dysregulation provides the rationale for pharmacological interventions. Previously, we have shown how unexpected arousal modulates metacognition (Allen et al., 2016). Here, we report a double-blind, placebo-controlled, study that examined specific effects of noradrenaline and dopamine on both metacognition and perceptual decision making. Signal theoretic analysis of a global motion discrimination task with adaptive performance staircasing revealed that noradrenergic blockade (40 mg propranolol) significantly increased metacognitive performance (type-II area under the curve, AUROC2), but had no impact on perceptual decision making performance. Blockade of dopamine D2/3 receptors (400 mg amisulpride) had no effect on either metacognition or perceptual decision making. Our study is the first to show a pharmacological enhancement of metacognitive performance, in the absence of any effect on perceptual decision making. This enhancement points to a regulatory role for noradrenergic neurotransmission in perceptual metacognition.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24901.001

Arbitrating between timely choice and extended information gathering is critical for effective decision making. Aberrant information gathering behavior is thought to be a feature of psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder, but we know little about the underlying neurocognitive control mechanisms. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled drug study involving 60 healthy human subjects (30 female), we examined the effects of noradrenaline and dopamine antagonism on information gathering during performance of an information sampling task. We show that modulating noradrenaline function with 40 mg of the β-blocker propranolol leads to decreased information gathering behavior. Modulating dopamine function via a single dose of 400 mg of amisulpride revealed some effects that were intermediate between those of propranolol and placebo. Using a Bayesian computational model, we show that sampling behavior is best explained by inclusion of a nonlinear urgency signal that promotes commitment to an early decision. Noradrenaline blockade promotes the expression of this decision-related urgency signal during information gathering. We discuss the findings with respect to psychopathological conditions that are linked to aberrant information gathering.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Knowing when to stop gathering information and commit to a choice option is nontrivial. This is an important element in arbitrating between information gain and energy conservation. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled drug study, we investigated the role of catecholamines noradrenaline and dopamine on sequential information gathering. We found that blockade of noradrenaline led to a decrease in information gathering. Dopamine blockade showed an intermediate, but nonsignificant, effect. Using a Bayesian computational model, we show that this noradrenaline effect is driven by increased decision urgency, a signal that reflects an escalating subjective cost of sampling. The observation that noradrenaline modulates decision urgency suggests new avenues for treating patients that show information gathering deficits.

Episodic memory is sensitive to the influence of neuromodulators, such as dopamine and noradrenaline. These influences are considered important in the expression of several known memory biases, though their specific role in memory remains unclear. Using pharmacological agents with relatively high selectivity for either dopamine (400 mg amisulpride) or noradrenaline (40 mg propranolol) we examined their specific contribution to incidental memory. In a double-blind placebo-controlled human study (30 females, 30 males in total), we show that a memory selectivity bias was insensitive to propranolol but sensitive to amisulpride, consistent with a dominant influence from dopamine. By contrast, a putative arousal-induced memory boosting effect was insensitive to amisulpride but was sensitive to propranolol, consistent with a dominant noradrenaline effect. Thus, our findings highlight specific functional roles for dopamine and noradrenaline neurotransmission in the expression of incidental memory.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Why some information is preferentially encoded into memory while other information is not is a central question in cognitive neuroscience. The neurotransmitters dopamine and noradrenaline are often assumed critical in influencing this selectivity, but their specific contributions remain obscure. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, between-subjects drug study, we investigate the contributions of noradrenaline and dopamine to episodic memory. Using an incidental memory task, we find that blocking dopamine (400 mg amisulpride) eliminates a neural-gain related memory selectivity bias. Blocking noradrenaline function (40 mg propranolol), in contrast, abolishes an arousal-related memory enhancement. In this assessment of dopamine and noradrenaline neuromodulatory effects we reveal their specific contributions to episodic memory.

Impairments in metacognition, the ability to accurately report one's performance, are common in patients with psychiatric disorders, where a putative neuromodulatory dysregulation provides the rationale for pharmacological interventions. Previously, we have shown how unexpected arousal modulates metacognition . Here, we report a double-blind, placebo-controlled, study that examined specific effects of noradrenaline and dopamine on both metacognition and perceptual decision making. Signal theoretic analysis of a global motion discrimination task with adaptive performance staircasing revealed that noradrenergic blockade (40 mg propranolol) significantly increased metacognitive performance (type-II area under the curve, AUROC2), but had no impact on perceptual decision making performance. Blockade of dopamine D2/3 receptors (400 mg amisulpride) had no effect on either metacognition or perceptual decision making. Our study is the first to show a pharmacological enhancement of metacognitive performance, in the absence of any effect on perceptual decision making. This enhancement points to a regulatory role for noradrenergic neurotransmission in perceptual metacognition. Making a decision is often accompanied by a conscious feeling of confidence (Flavell, 1979). Subjective confidence reports typically show a good correspondence to actual task performance, reflecting a metacognitive ability for accurate introspection (Fleming et al., 2010). Impairments in metacognition can compromise decision making and lead to misjudgements of actual performance, as found in several psychiatric dimensions, such as schizophrenia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or compulsivity (Frith, 1992;Knouse et al., 2005;Lysaker et al., 2010;Hauser et al., 2017).The neurocognitive mechanisms from which confidence, and metacognitive ability in general, arise are ill understood. While classic accounts see confidence as a mere extension of a perceptual sampling process (Kiani and Shadlen, 2009;Pleskac and Busemeyer, 2010;Meyniel et al., 2015;Moran et al., 2015), other evidence points to a non-trivial relationship between decision making and confidence that invoke distinct decision making and metacognitive processes (Fleming et al., 2010;Allen et al., 2017). Metacognition can thus be understood as incorporating both decision-related and domain-general information (Fleming and Daw, 2017) and frontopolar and hippocampal brain structures, for example, have been shown to contribute specifically to metacognition but not to perceptual decision making (Fleming et al., 2010Allen et al., 2017). In our previous study, we provided evidence that arousal can bias metacognition independently of decision accuracy , in accordance with other studies showing confidence-accuracy dissociations (Fleming et al., 2015;Spence et al., 2016) and suggested that these biases might be under neuromodulatory control via neural gain (Eldar et al., 2013;Hauser et al., 2016).Hauser et al. eLife 2017;6:e24901.