Specific effects of the benzodiazepine midazolam on visual receptive fields in light and dark adapted human subjects

Groner, Marina; Fisch, Hans-Ulrich; Walder, F.; Groner, Rudolf; Hofer, Dominik; Koelbing, U.; Duss, I.; Bianchi, Rossella; Bircher, B.

doi:10.1007/bf02245482

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this latter study, the authors proposed to explain the results by a diffuse effect of the drug, the effect being maximal at the frequencies that are processed by both pathways, or by an effect on a separate channel responsible for the processing of intermediate spatial frequencies. Other authors have proposed that benzodiazepines affect surround inhibition in retinal or lateral geniculate receptive fields (Groner et al 1992;Harris and Phillipson 1995). The results are consistent with an effect at the retina level.…”

Section: Contrast Sensitivitysupporting

confidence: 90%

Impairment of contrast sensitivity in long-term lorazepam users

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Contrast Sensitivitysupporting

confidence: 90%

Impairment of contrast sensitivity in long-term lorazepam users

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…P(hit) was normal after the drug at higher signal intensities, indicating that it caused a rightward horizontal shift in the P(hit) by intensity gradient. Whereas visual dysfunction does not figure prominently in the pharmacology of chlordiazepoxide, benzodiazepine receptor agonists have been reported to affect vision, including changes in critical flicker fusion frequency (McNab et al 1985), a reduced amplitude of the visual evoked potential in humans and in rats (Hudnell and Boyes 1991), and increased contrast thresholds in humans (Groner et al 1992). In addition, chlordiazepoxide has been shown to interfere with accuracy of visual discriminations (Francis and Cooper 1979;Cole 1986; but see also Dudchenko et al 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Detection of visual signals by rats: effects of chlordiazepoxide and cholinergic and adrenergic drugs on sustained attention

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central cholinergic and adrenergic pathways support the attentional processes necessary for detecting and reporting temporally unpredictable stimuli. To assess the functional effects of pharmacological manipulations of these pathways, male Long-Evans rats performed a two-choice, discrete-trial signal-detection task in which food was provided for pressing one lever after presentation of a signal (a 300-ms light flash), and for pressing a second lever at the end of a trial lacking a signal. Seven signal intensities were presented during each 1-h session in a pseudo-random order across three 100-trial blocks. After acquisition of a stable performance baseline, the acute effects of chlordiazepoxide (0, 3, 5, 8 mg/kg i.p.), pilocarpine (0, 1.0, 1.8, 3.0 mg/kg s.c.), scopolamine 0, 0.030, 0.056, 0.100 mg/kg s.c.), nicotine (0, 0.08, 0.25, 0.75 mg/kg s.c.), mecamylamine (0, 1.8, 3.0, 5.6 mg/kg i.p.), clonidine (0, 0.003, 0.010, 0.030 mg/kg s.c.), and idazoxan (0, 1, 3, 10 mg/kg s.c.) were assessed. Five measures of performance were analyzed: response failures; the proportion of "hits" [P(hit): the proportion of correct responses on signal trials]; the proportion of "false alarms" [P(fa): the proportion of incorrect responses on non-signal trials]; and response times (RT) for hits and for correct rejections. All drugs which slowed responding affected RT for hits and correct rejections equivalently, suggesting little or no influence of motor slowing on choice accuracy. Chlordiazepoxide reduced P(hit) at low signal intensities only, without affecting P(fa) or RT, consistent with sensory impairment (reduced visual sensitivity). All other drugs except nicotine reduced P(hit) at high signal intensities preferentially, suggesting a non-visual source of the impairment. Scopolamine, mecamylamine and clonidine affected both P(hit) and P(fa); pilocarpine and idazoxan reduced P(hit) without affecting P(fa). Nicotine at 0.75 mg/kg decreased P(hit) in the first block of trials; at 0.08 mg/kg it increased P(hit) in the second block; no dose affected P(fa). RTs were increased by pilocarpine, scopolamine, mecamylamine and clonidine, but not by nicotine or idazoxan. The data suggest that drugs which reduce cholinergic or adrenergic tone (scopolamine, mecamylamine and clonidine) impair sustained attention by decreasing the detection of signals and by increasing the false alarm rate, whereas drugs which elevate cholinergic or adrenergic tone (pilocarpine, nicotine and idazoxan) decrease attention by impairing detection of signals without affecting the false alarm rate. In contrast, the GABA-facilitating drug chlordiazepoxide appeared to affect visual thresholds rather than attention.

show abstract

“…The sedation produced by midazolam can be characterized as slightly reduced efficiency of central nervous system transmission. Given sufficiently high doses of midazolam, an individual will demonstrate affected attention, perception, and memory retrieval, including increased reaction time in the detection of unusual tones (Reinsel et al, 1991); reduced amplitude of startle responses to unusual stimuli (Hijzen, Rijnders, & Slangen, 1991); reduced amplitude of the P300 component of the electroencephalogram (EEG) in response to unusual tones (Reinsel et al, 1991); reduced peak velocity of eye movement saccades (Ball, Glue, Wilson, & Nutt, 1991); increased visual thresholds (Groner et al, 1992); reduced force in muscular grip (Coldwell et al, 1998); and increased latencies of semantic verification (Jackson, Louwerens, Cnossen, & de Jong, 1993).…”

Section: Sedation and Amnesiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Midazolam amnesia and conceptual processing in implicit memory.

Hirshman¹,

Passannante²,

Arndt³

2001

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prominent theories of implicit memory (D. Schacter, B. Church, & J. Treadwell, 1994) emphasize the dominant role of perceptual processing in mediating priming on perceptual implicit memory tests. Examinations of the effects of conceptual processing on perceptual implicit memory tests have produced ambiguous results. Although a number of investigations (e.g., J. Toth & R. Hunt, 1990) have demonstrated that variations in conceptual processing affect priming on perceptual implicit memory tests, these effects may arise because of the contaminating effects of explicit memory. The current experiment examined this controversy using midazolam, a benzodiazepine that produces a dense, albeit temporary, anterograde amnesia when injected prior to study. The experiment examined whether the effects of generation found on the implicit memory test of perceptual identification were affected by a midazolam injection prior to study. Results demonstrated that midazolam substantially diminished generation effects in free and cued recall, as well as overall performance on these tests, but had no detectable effect on the generation effect in perceptual identification.

show abstract

Specific effects of the benzodiazepine midazolam on visual receptive fields in light and dark adapted human subjects

Cited by 12 publications

References 50 publications

Impairment of contrast sensitivity in long-term lorazepam users

Impairment of contrast sensitivity in long-term lorazepam users

Detection of visual signals by rats: effects of chlordiazepoxide and cholinergic and adrenergic drugs on sustained attention

Midazolam amnesia and conceptual processing in implicit memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About