Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Striatal Dopamine D2/D3 Receptor Availability Is Associated with Executive Function in Healthy Controls but Not Methamphetamine Users

  • Michael E. Ballard,

    Current address: Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America; VA Northern California Health Care System, Martinez, California, United States of America

    Affiliations Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Andy C. Dean,

    Affiliations Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, Brain Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Mark A. Mandelkern,

    Affiliations VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, Department of Physics, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Edythe D. London

    elondon@mednet.ucla.edu

    Affiliations Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, Brain Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

Dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability in the striatum has been linked with executive function in healthy individuals, and is below control levels among drug addicts, possibly contributing to diminished executive function in the latter group. This study tested for an association of striatal D2/D3 receptor availability with a measure of executive function among research participants who met DSM-IV criteria for methamphetamine dependence.

Methods

Methamphetamine users and non-user controls (n = 18 per group) completed the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and positron emission tomography with [18F]fallypride.

Results

The methamphetamine users displayed significantly lower striatal D2/D3 receptor availability on average than controls after controlling for age and education (p = 0.008), but they did not register greater proportions of either perseverative or non-perseverative errors when controlling for education (both ps ≥ 0.622). The proportion of non-perseverative, but not perseverative, errors was negatively correlated with striatal D2/D3 receptor availability among controls (r = -0.588, p = 0.010), but not methamphetamine users (r = 0.281, p = 0.258), and the group-wise interaction was significant (p = 0.030).

Conclusions

These results suggest that cognitive flexibility, as measured by perseverative errors on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, is not determined by signaling through striatal D2/D3 receptors in healthy controls, and that in stimulant abusers, who have lower D2/D3 receptor availability, compensation can effectively maintain other executive functions, which are associated with D2/D3 receptor signaling in controls.

Citation: Ballard ME, Dean AC, Mandelkern MA, London ED (2015) Striatal Dopamine D2/D3 Receptor Availability Is Associated with Executive Function in Healthy Controls but Not Methamphetamine Users. PLoS ONE 10(12): e0143510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510

Editor: J Bruce Morton, University of Western Ontario, CANADA

Received: June 10, 2015; Accepted: November 5, 2015; Published: December 14, 2015

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The research was supported by National Institutes of Health grants R01 DA020726 (EDL), P20 DA022539 (EDL), K23 DA027734 (ACD), M0I RR00865 (UCLA GCRC), by endowments from the Thomas P. and Katherine K. Pike Chair in Addiction Studies (EDL), and the Marjorie M. Greene Trust. MEB was supported by T32 DA024635. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Drug addiction is a complex disorder that often is associated with inflexible behavior and deficient executive function [1]. Numerous studies have demonstrated poorer performance on tasks that assess executive function among individuals with a history of chronic drug abuse relative to healthy controls [2–14]. Problems with executive function, including cognitive inflexibility, difficulty focusing attention, and diminished self-control, have been implicated in the etiology of compulsive drug use, and reduced function in these domains has been viewed as a substantial impediment to successful treatment (for reviews, see [1, 15, 16]). As such, research aimed at elucidating the neural underpinnings of the relatively less effective executive function among some substance-dependent individuals compared to non-user controls may lead to new therapeutic interventions.

Executive function is primarily subserved by the prefrontal cortex, which exerts “top-down” control over subcortical structures, such as the striatum and amygdala, which are responsive to “bottom-up” sensory input [17]. Despite being principally ascribed to the prefrontal cortex [17–19], however, the processes of decision-making and selection of actions are mediated by subcortical structures as well. In particular, D2/D3 receptor availability in the striatum has been found to be correlated positively with performance on laboratory tests that rely heavily on executive processes in healthy individuals [20–25], and in carriers of the Huntington’s disease mutation [26]. This is particularly relevant to addictive disorders because striatal D2/D3 receptor availability is typically lower among drug addicts than non-user controls (for a review, see [27]). As such, it stands to reason that low striatal D2/D3 receptor availability may be linked with poor performance on laboratory tests of executive function among individuals with substance-use disorders. Yet, to our knowledge, no studies have examined whether the relationships between striatal D2/D3 receptor availability and executive functions seen in healthy individuals extend to substance abusers, who have relatively low striatal D2/D3 receptor availability.

In this study, striatal D2/D3 receptor availability was examined in relation to performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), a laboratory measure of executive function. Research participants who met DSM-IV criteria for methamphetamine (MA) dependence were compared with a group of healthy controls. MA-dependent individuals were selected as a group for study because case-control studies find that they display low striatal D2/D3 receptor availability (for a review, see [28]) and poorer performance on the WCST than healthy controls ([2, 3]; although several studies have not observed similar performance differences among cocaine users, e.g. [4–6, 12, 29, 30]). On the basis of the literature cited above, we expected that MA users would exhibit lower striatal D2/D3 receptor availability and worse performance on the WCST. We hypothesized that striatal D2/D3 receptor availability would be negatively correlated with errors on the WCST among both MA users and non-users. Further, we hypothesized that WCST performance measures would be more strongly related to striatal BPND in MA users than in controls, in line with our previous finding regarding the relationship between striatal BPND and temporal discounting, another measure of executive function [31].

Methods

Participants

Procedures were approved by the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Office for Protection of Research Subjects. Participants were recruited using Internet and local newspaper advertisements. All provided written informed consent and underwent eligibility screening using questionnaires, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) [32], and a physical examination. Eighteen individuals who met criteria for current MA dependence, but were not seeking treatment for their addiction, and 18 controls, completed the study. D2/D3 receptor-availability data from all but two of the MA users and all of the controls have been reported previously [31], and smaller subsets were included in other studies from our laboratory regarding striatal D2/D3 receptor availability [33–37].

The exclusion criteria were: CNS, cardiovascular, pulmonary, hepatic, or systemic disease; HIV seropositive status; pregnancy; lack of English fluency; MRI ineligibility (e.g. metal implants, claustrophobia); current use of psychotropic medications; current Axis I disorder including substance abuse or dependence for any substance other than nicotine (all MA users met criteria for MA dependence; substance-induced mood disorders were also not exclusionary for this group).

A diagnosis of MA dependence and a positive urine test for MA metabolites at intake were required for MA-group participants, who completed the study as inpatients at the UCLA General Clinical Research Center, and were prohibited from using any drugs (besides nicotine in cigarettes and caffeine in beverages) for 4–7 days before testing. Most MA users completed the behavioral and imaging measures 2 days apart (ns = 16 within 1 week, one 11 days apart, and one 415 days apart). Controls were studied on a nonresidential basis, and most completed the measures within a few days or weeks (ns = seven within 1 week, nine 1–6 weeks apart, one 337 days apart, and one 488 days apart). Relationships between imaging and behavioral variables did not depend on the lag between measures, and excluding the individuals with long lags did not substantially change the results. Each participant was required to provide a urine sample on each test day that was negative for amphetamine, cocaine, MA, benzodiazepine, opiate, and cannabinoid metabolites. Compensation was provided in the form of cash, gift certificates, and vouchers.

Executive function

Executive function was assessed with the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) [38]. While performing this non-computerized version of the test, the participant is presented with four sample cards, each depicting between one and four geometric shapes (triangle, star, cross, or circle), all of the same color (red, green, yellow, or blue). He or she is instructed to select a new card on which the items are of a different number, shape, and/or color, and then to match the drawn card to one of the sample cards using one of the attributes, without knowing the pre-defined matching criterion. The participant is informed after each response whether he/she was correct or incorrect. Subsequently, a new card is drawn, and the task proceeds. Once 10 consecutive correct matches are made, the criterion for success is switched (e.g., where matching by color first yields success, the matching criterion is switched to geometric shape, etc.). The task is untimed, and terminates when the participant reaches six correct categories or cycles through all 128 cards. The WCST is widely used as a test of executive function, and studies have shown that individuals with a history of MA abuse often perform more poorly on this task than non-user controls (e.g. users tend to register more errors) [2, 3]. In this study, main outcome measures of interest included the proportion of trials registered as perseverative errors (i.e., continuing to match on an attribute that was previously identified as incorrect within a given matching rule) and the proportion of trials registered as non-perseverative errors (i.e., incorrectly matching in a manner not previously established as incorrect). Although the number of correct categories can be tallied (number of times a set of 10 cards were correct in a row for the same attribute), we did not examine this variable in relation to receptor availability because only three participants (all MA users) achieved less than the maximum six categories possible.

D2/D3 receptor availability

Dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability was assessed using a Siemens EXACT HR+ PET scanner in 3D mode with [18F]fallypride as the radioligand [39]. Following a 7-min transmission scan acquired using a rotating 68Ge/68Ga rod source to measure and correct for attenuation, PET dynamic data acquisition was initiated with a bolus injection of [18F]fallypride (~5 mCi ± 5%, specific activity ≥ 1 Ci/μmol). Emission data were acquired in two 80-min blocks, separated by a 10-20-min break.

Raw PET data were corrected for decay, attenuation, and scatter, and then reconstructed using ordered-subsets expectation-maximization (OSEM) (3 iterations; 16 subsets), using ECAT v7.2 software (CTI PET Systems Inc., Knoxville, TN). Reconstructed data were combined into 16 images (each representing an average of 10 min of dynamic data), and the images were motion-corrected using FSL McFLIRT [40], and co-registered to the individual’s structural MRI scan image using a six-parameter, rigid-body transformation computed with the ART software package [41]. Structural images were magnetization-prepared, rapid-acquisition, gradient-echo (MPRAGE) scans, acquired during a separate session using a Siemens Sonata 1.5T MRI scanner. All images were registered to MNI152 space using FSL FLIRT [42]. The primary volume of interest (VOI) was the striatum, and exploratory analyses were carried out in other subcortical and cortical VOIs with appreciable [18F]fallypride BPND (i.e., globus pallidus, amygdala, thalamus, midbrain, insula, hippocampus, anterior cingulate cortex, and medial and lateral orbitofrontal cortices) in order to explore the specificity of potential relationships observed in the striatum. Volumes of interest (VOIs) were derived from the Harvard-Oxford atlases transformed into individual native space, or defined using FSL FIRST [41]. For VOI analysis, the striatum was divided into three functional subdivisions as described previously [43]: the limbic striatum consisted of the ventral striatum; the associative striatum consisted of the precommissural dorsal putamen, precommissural dorsal caudate, and postcommissural caudate; and the sensorimotor striatum consisted of the postcommissural putamen [44].

Time-activity data within VOIs were imported into the PMOD 3.2 kinetic modeling analysis program (PKIN; PMOD Technologies Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland), and time-activity curves were fit using the Simplified Reference Tissue Model 2, SRTM2 [45]. The cerebellum (excluding the vermis) was used as the reference region [46]. The rate parameter for transfer of the tracer from the reference region to plasma (k2′) was computed as the volume-weighted average of estimates from fits to receptor-rich regions (caudate and putamen) calculated using the simplified reference tissue model (SRTM) [47], as suggested by Ichise et al. [48]. Time-activity curves were re-fit using SRTM2 [45], with the computed k2′ value applied to fits to all brain regions. Regional binding potential referred to non-displaceable binding and was calculated as BPND = R1(k2′ / k2a - 1), where R1 = K1 / K1′ is the ratio of tracer-delivery parameters for the tissue of interest and reference tissue, k2′ is the rate parameter for the transfer of tracer from the reference tissue to the plasma, and k2a is the effective rate parameter for transfer of tracer from the tissue of interest to the plasma [49–51]. Volume-weighted bilateral averages of all VOIs were used for analyses.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS v23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Continuous variables were assessed for homogeneity of variance across groups using Levene’s tests. Demographic variables were examined for group differences using two-tailed independent samples t-tests, Mann-Whitney U-tests, or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. Group differences in executive function measures and BPND were tested using separate independent-samples t-tests, and ANOVA was used to confirm group differences when controlling for confounding demographic variables; covariates were identified using forward regression predicting the dependent measure of interest. Linear regressions were used to test potential relationships between putative predictor variables and outcome measures of interest, with potential confounding demographic variables included as covariates. Potential group differences in the strength of the relationships between BPND and WCST measures were assessed using linear regression, with a group x BPND interaction term entered in the model along with group and BPND; interactions with covariates were not included in the model. The threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.05 for all analyses.

Results

The groups included similar proportions of males and females (p = 1.00; Table 1), as well as tobacco smokers and non-smokers (p = 0.471), and did not differ in age (p = 0.258) or ethnic group composition (p = 0.572); however, MA users reported significantly fewer years of formal education than controls on average (p = 0.010).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of research participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510.t001

As shown in Table 2, striatal BPND was lower among MA users than controls, and this group difference was statistically significant when controlling for both age and years of formal education; age and education were respectively selected first and second (while sex and smoking status were excluded) by a forward step-wise regression predicting striatal BPND with demographic variables (correlation between striatal BPND and age: r = -0.637, p < 0.0005; correlation between striatal BPND and education: r = 0.418, p = 0.011; S1 and S2 Tables), consistent with previous reports [53, 54].

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Comparison of striatal BPND and WCST performance between MA users and controls (n = 18 each).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510.t002

Compared to controls, MA users tended to register greater proportions of both non-perseverative errors and perseverative errors, but there was no evidence of group differences in the proportions of errors when controlling for years of formal education; education was selected as the sole predictor (while age, sex, years of education, and smoking status were excluded) by a forward step-wise regression predicting WCST proportion of non-perseverative errors with demographic variables (correlation between the proportion of non-perseverative errors and education: r = -0.435, p = 0.008; S1 and S3 Tables).

Multiple regression analyses indicated that the relationship between the proportion of non-perseverative errors and striatal BPND differed significantly between MA users and controls, as evidenced by the significant effect of a group x BPND product term, which was calculated to represent the interaction effect and entered into the model along with group and BPND (R2 = 0.13, F1,32 = 5.13, p = 0.030). Analogous post-hoc analyses indicated that the group by striatal BPND interaction was apparent in the associative subdivision of the striatum (group x BPND: R2 = 0.22, F1,32 = 5.39, p = 0.027, with apparently smaller effects in limbic [group x limbic striatum BPND: p = 0.143] and sensorimotor divisions of the striatum [group x sensorimotor striatum BPND: p = 0.078]), but this effect was not significant following correction for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method.

A forward step-wise regression selected striatal BPND (while excluding age, sex, education, and smoker status) as the best and sole predictor of the proportion of non-perseverative errors among controls, accounting for 35% of the variance across this group (F1,16 = 8.45, p = 0.010). The correlation coefficient for the relationship between the proportion of non-perseverative errors and striatal BPND among controls was r = -0.588 (MA users: r = 0.281, p = 0.258; Fig 1). Analogous post-hoc analyses revealed significant negative correlations between the proportion of non-perseverative errors and BPND in all three striatal functional subdivisions among controls (limbic striatum: r = -0.520, p = 0.027; associative striatum: r = -0.608, p = 0.007; sensorimotor striatum: r = -0.564, p = 0.015; Fig 2), and these survived correction for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method. An analogous forward step-wise regression in MA users did not select any of the independent variables (i.e., striatal BPND, age, sex, education, smoker status) as significant predictors of the proportion of non-perseverative errors in that group.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Relationships between striatal D2/D3 receptor availability and executive function measures.

Regression lines illustrate correlations between striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability (indexed by [18F]fallypride BPND) and proportions of trials registered as non-perseverative (top row) and perseverative (bottom row) errors in methamphetamine (MA) users and non-user controls. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients are shown (r values).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Relationships between D2/D3 receptor availability in striatal subregions and executive function measures.

Regression lines illustrate correlations between striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability (indexed by [18F]fallypride BPND) and proportions of trials registered as non-perseverative and perseverative errors in the striatal functional subdivisions of methamphetamine (MA) users (bottom row) and non-user controls (top row). Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients are shown (r values).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510.g002

With respect to perseverative errors, there was no evidence of a group by striatal BPND interaction (p = 0.183), and the proportion of perseverative errors was not significantly correlated with striatal BPND in either group, (both p ≥ 0.318; Fig 1). Although the proportions of perseverative and non-perseverative errors were positively correlated in both groups (controls: r = 0.519, p = 0.027; MA users: r = 0.646, p = 0.004), a post hoc Steiger’s z-test indicated that, among controls only, striatal BPND was significantly more strongly correlated with the proportion of non-perseverative than perseverative errors (z = -1.79, one-tailed p = 0.037).

Discussion

The goal of this study was to test the hypotheses that striatal D2/D3 receptor availability would be linked with executive function, as measured by the WCST, with greater receptor availability accompanying better performance; and that this association would be stronger in MA-dependent participants than in healthy controls. This hypothesis was based mainly on reports that striatal D2/D3 receptor availability is positively associated with performance on laboratory tests of executive function among healthy individuals who do not use drugs of abuse [20–25], and is typically lower among drug addicts than non-user controls (for a review, see [27]). We reasoned that the linear relationship found among non-users would extend to, and potentially would be stronger among MA-users, in a manner analogous to the greater dependence on D2/D3 receptor availability of performance on a delay discounting task in MA-dependent than in control subjects [31]. In contrast to our hypothesis and to previous reports [2, 3], we found that MA users did not register greater proportions of errors in this study, when controlling for education, despite displaying significantly lower striatal D2/D3 receptor availability on average than controls, after controlling for age and education. Furthermore, striatal D2/D3 receptor availability was negatively correlated with the proportion of non-perseverative errors, but not perseverative errors among controls but not MA users.

The present study is one of the first to examine a discrete measure of executive function in relation to D2/D3 receptor availability in individuals with a substance-use disorder [55]; although a small number have utilized alternate neurochemical measures of striatal dopaminergic neurotransmission [56, 57]. Thus, it addresses an important gap in the literature because executive deficits, particularly involving cognitive flexibility and sensitivity to negative feedback, have been implicated in the etiology of compulsive drug use, and are viewed as substantial obstacles to treatment (for reviews, see [1, 15, 16]). Our results suggest that, although certain aspects of cognitive function, indexed by non-perseverative errors on the WCST, may be related to striatal D2/D3 receptor availability in individuals who do not abuse drugs, low striatal D2/D3 receptor availability does not appear to influence one measure of executive function, specifically cognitive inflexibility, as measured by perseverative errors among MA users. This finding is surprising in light of findings that acute administration of a D2 receptor antagonist [58] as well as administration of MA according to a subchronic regimen that reduces striatal neurochemical markers of dopaminergic neurotransmission [59] impair cognitive flexibility in monkeys. The present finding in humans is intriguing because it raises the possibility that compensatory neural mechanisms serve to buffer at least some aspects of executive function from the potentially detrimental effects of low striatal D2/D3 receptor availability in stimulant abusers.

That striatal D2/D3 receptor availability was negatively correlated with the proportion of non-perseverative, but not perseverative, errors among healthy controls is broadly consistent with a report that dorsal striatal D2/D3 receptor availability is positively associated with sensitivity to positive feedback (i.e., the tendency to follow positive feedback with a correct response) but not to negative feedback (i.e., the ability to change matching criteria following negative feedback) in healthy monkeys during reversal learning [60]. An important distinction, however, is that although a high proportion of perseverative errors in the WCST essentially reflects insensitivity to negative feedback (the tendency to persist with a matching criterion that the subject has already been informed is incorrect), the proportion of non-perseverative errors is not a pure measure of insensitivity to positive feedback—i.e., it could reflect imprecise learning of the matching criterion, or deficits in working memory, attention, and other cognitive processes. Although the number of perseverative errors on the WCST essentially reflects insensitivity to negative feedback, it may not constitute a direct measure of negative reinforcement learning in the context of the larger task, which requires greater executive control than simpler reinforcement learning tasks. Indeed, in contrast to a recent PET study in humans, which found an inverted U-shaped relationship between striatal D2/D3 receptor availability and a more pure measure of learning from negative feedback [61], the present study found no such relationship between striatal D2/D3 receptor availability and the proportion of perseverative errors on the WCST, either in the combined sample (p = 0.567), or in controls (p = 0.733) or MA users (p = 0.502), separately.

Still, current computational theories hypothesize that learning from negative feedback is mediated, in part, by D2 receptor-containing striatal medium spiny neurons in the indirect (or ‘no-go’) pathway [62], and that reductions in striatal D2/D3 receptor levels, which may occur following chronic methamphetamine abuse [59], would serve to erode dopaminergic control over the ‘no-go’ system, thus diminishing the capacity to learn from negative feedback. Also in line with a function of D2/D3 receptor signaling in learning form negative feedback is the observation that carriers of the A1 allele of the ANKK1-Taq1A polymorphism exhibit subtle performance deficits in reversal learning as compared to homozygotes without this allele [63] and show reduced interaction between the posterior medial frontal cortex and the hippocampus—referred to as the performance monitoring network—in response to negative feedback than those without the A1 allele [64]. As well, results from a study involving a small sample of abstinent cocaine abusers and non-user controls who performed the color-word Stroop task, which measures executive function and is heavily dependent on cognitive flexibility, provide preliminary evidence that lower striatal D2/D3 receptor availability is linked to blunted neural responses (e.g., midbrain activation) during error processing among stimulant abusers [55].

Contrary to this reasoning, MA users did not register greater proportions of perseverative errors than controls, despite having lower striatal D2/D3 receptor availability on average. However, it has also been reasoned that under conditions of low tonic dopaminergic transmission, which is hypothesized to coincide with reduced striatal D2/D3 receptor density following chronic stimulant abuse [27], the capacity to learn from negative feedback is enhanced [61, 62], which could help to buffer MA users from the potentially detrimental effects of low striatal D2/D3 receptor density on learning from negative feedback.

In the single other study that examined striatal D2/D3 receptor availability in relation to WCST performance, the total number of errors, a raw measure that does not take into account the type of error or total number of trials, was negatively correlated with D2/D3 receptor availability in both striatal regions tested (caudate and putamen) of healthy control subjects [20]; a similar trend was found in controls studied here (r = -0.405, p = 0.091).

That MA users did not register significantly greater proportions of perseverative or non-perseverative errors than controls is consistent with two previous studies [56, 65]. Two others found significant group differences with both perseverative and non-perseverative errors on the WCST: one with MA users abstinent longer than one month [3]; the other with MA users abstinent on average longer than two years [2]. Potential reasons for this discrepancy between the results of these latter two studies and the lack of a difference in performance compared with controls in the present study are not immediately clear, but may reflect a variety of differences in the samples studied. For example, in one of the two prior studies that found a group difference in WCST performance, all of the MA users (N = 32) self-administered the drug by the intravenous route and were Asian, and HIV seropositive status was not excluded [2], unlike the characteristics of the sample studied here. In the other study that found differences in WCST performance in a sample of abstinent MA users, all MA users (N = 43) were hospitalized treatment-seeking patients [3], also unlike the participants in the present study. Certainly, the larger sample sizes in those studies provided more power than those of the present study to detect group differences; however given the exceedingly marginal group difference in WCST performance seen here after controlling for education, it seems unlikely that using similar-sized samples in this study would have returned a significant group difference in WCST performance. Indeed, several studies have also found no significant difference on measures of WCST errors between controls and other populations of drug abusers [9, 66], who also typically display low striatal D2/D3 receptor availability (for a review, see [27]), including stimulant users [4–6, 12, 29, 30].

That WCST error rates can be similar between controls and MA users despite the latter group displaying lower striatal D2/D3 receptor availability, coupled with the finding that the non-perseverative error rate is correlated with striatal D2/D3 receptor availability in controls but not MA users, suggests that striatal D2/D3 receptor availability contributes to certain aspects of executive function in healthy individuals, but that these associations become uncoupled in MA dependence. As such, executive function may be primarily subserved by non-D2/D3 mechanisms in chronic stimulant abusers who have low striatal D2/D3 receptor availability. Broadly in line with this view is the observation that a deficit in reversal learning in monkeys, induced by an escalating dose regimen of MA that produced persistent reductions in striatal D2/D3 receptor availability, was transient whereas the neurochemical loss was long-term [59].

It is important to note that both WCST performance measures and D2/D3 receptor availability were significantly correlated with years of formal education in our sample. This collinearity in predictive variables is an important limitation because it makes it difficult to disentangle the influence of education on the relationship between WCST performance and striatal D2/D3 receptor availability. Despite the established relationship between cognition and education, studies of cognition in MA users do not consistently control for education [67]. Studies testing the association of D2/D3 receptor availability with cognition have also not consistently considered the potential confounding effect of education [21, 24–26]. Still, considering the maladaptive behavioral patterns associated with low striatal D2/D3 receptor availability (for a review, see [27]), it seems reasonable to expect that low striatal D2/D3 receptor availability may contribute to less educational attainment. Another possibility is that lack of school-related enrichment could result in low D2/D3 receptor availability, but this is not known. That only a subset of participants completed a measure of IQ is also a notable limitation, because it would have helped to indicate whether the relationship found with WCST non-perseverative errors is specific to the cognitive domains involved, or whether this finding might be better characterized as being related to general cognition. Future studies will help to determine the extent to which the relationship depends on educational attainment and IQ.

Evidence from previous PET studies indicates that the link between WCST performance and D2/D3 receptor availability in healthy adults is not limited to the striatum. Two of these studies showed that total perseverative errors were correlated negatively with D2/D3 receptor availability in the hippocampus [68, 69]; and another, which surveyed several extrastriatal regions found positive correlations between perseverative as well as non-perseverative errors and D2/D3 receptor availability in the right anterior cingulate cortex only [70]. Broadly in line with the former studies, we detected a modest negative association between perseverative error rate and D2/D3 receptor availability in the hippocampi of control subjects (r = -0.327, p = 0.186); but in contrast with the latter study, we saw no evidence of a positive association between D2/D3 receptor availability in the anterior cingulate cortex and the rate of either perseverative (r = -0.185, p = 0.462) or non-perseverative errors (r = -0.174, p = 0.490). In fact, exploratory correlational analyses did not return a p-value less than 0.05 with respect to the relationships between either error measure and D2/D3 receptor availability in any of the cortical or extrastriatal subcortical regions tested (S4 Table); although they revealed some evidence of potential negative relationships between non-perseverative error rate and D2/D3 receptor availability in the globus pallidus and thalamus among controls. The suggestion from the exploratory correlation analyses that the relationship between non-perseverative error rate and D2/D3 receptor availability is primarily restricted to the striatum is also noteworthy because it contrasts with evidence that temporal discounting of rewards (which also depends on executive functions) is associated with D2/D3 receptor availability in a number of extrastriatal regions in addition to the striatum [31].

In summary, we found that MA users displayed significantly lower striatal D2/D3 receptor availability on average than controls after controlling for age and education, but they did not register greater proportions of perseverative or non-perseverative errors on the WCST when controlling for education. The proportion of non-perseverative errors, but not perseverative errors, was negatively correlated with striatal D2/D3 receptor availability among controls, but not MA users. Taken together, these results suggest that non-D2/D3 receptor-mediated mechanisms can effectively buffer some aspects of executive function from deficient striatal D2/D3 receptor-mediated neurotransmission in chronic stimulant abusers.

Supporting Information

S1 Data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510.s001

(XLSX)

S1 Table. Correlations of the variables (n = 36).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510.s002

(PDF)

S2 Table. Forward step-wise regression results with whole striatum BPND as the dependent variable, and demographic variables as predictors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510.s003

(PDF)

S3 Table. Forward step-wise regression results with WCST proportion of non-perseverative errors as the dependent variable, and demographic variables as predictors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510.s004

(PDF)

S4 Table. Exploratory tests of relationships between D2/D3 receptor availability in extrastriatal regions and executive function measures.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143510.s005

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Francisca H. Ahn for her assistance in compiling and organizing the dataset.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MEB ACD MAM EDL. Performed the experiments: ACD MAM. Analyzed the data: MEB MAM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MAM EDL. Wrote the paper: MEB ACD MAM EDL.

References

  1. 1. Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging findings and clinical implications. Nature reviews Neuroscience. 2011;12(11):652–69. pmid:22011681; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3462342.
  2. 2. Chung A, Lyoo IK, Kim SJ, Hwang J, Bae SC, Sung YH, et al. Decreased frontal white-matter integrity in abstinent methamphetamine abusers. The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology / official scientific journal of the Collegium Internationale Neuropsychopharmacologicum. 2007;10(6):765–75. pmid:17147837.
  3. 3. Hosak L, Preiss M, Bazant J, Tibenska A, Cermakova R, Cermakova E. Comparison of Wisconsin Card Sorting Test results between Czech subjects dependent on methamphetamine versus healthy volunteers. Psychiatria Danubina. 2012;24(2):188–93. pmid:22706418.
  4. 4. Goldstein RZ, Leskovjan AC, Hoff AL, Hitzemann R, Bashan F, Khalsa SS, et al. Severity of neuropsychological impairment in cocaine and alcohol addiction: association with metabolism in the prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(11):1447–58. pmid:15246283.
  5. 5. Verdejo-Garcia A, Perez-Garcia M. Profile of executive deficits in cocaine and heroin polysubstance users: common and differential effects on separate executive components. Psychopharmacology. 2007;190(4):517–30. pmid:17136401.
  6. 6. Woicik PA, Moeller SJ, Alia-Klein N, Maloney T, Lukasik TM, Yeliosof O, et al. The neuropsychology of cocaine addiction: recent cocaine use masks impairment. Neuropsychopharmacology: official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009;34(5):1112–22. pmid:18496524; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2667096.
  7. 7. Nowakowska K, Jablkowska K, Borkowska A. [Cognitive dysfunctions in patients with alcohol dependence]. Psychiatria polska. 2007;41(5):693–702. pmid:18421924.
  8. 8. Amini F, Alizadeh H, Rezaee O. Comparison of executive-neurological functions between addicted adults and normal adults. Annals of Biological Research 2012;3(1):415–21.
  9. 9. Pau CW, Lee TM, Chan SF. The impact of heroin on frontal executive functions. Archives of clinical neuropsychology: the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists. 2002;17(7):663–70. pmid:14591849.
  10. 10. Verdejo-Garcia A, Bechara A, Recknor EC, Perez-Garcia M. Executive dysfunction in substance dependent individuals during drug use and abstinence: an examination of the behavioral, cognitive and emotional correlates of addiction. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS. 2006;12(3):405–15. pmid:16903133.
  11. 11. Bechara A, Dolan S, Denburg N, Hindes A, Anderson SW, Nathan PE. Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39(4):376–89. pmid:11164876.
  12. 12. Hoff AL, Riordan H, Morris L, Cestaro V, Wieneke M, Alpert R, et al. Effects of crack cocaine on neurocognitive function. Psychiatry research. 1996;60(2–3):167–76. pmid:8723307.
  13. 13. Errico AL, King AC, Lovallo WR, Parsons OA. Cortisol dysregulation and cognitive impairment in abstinent male alcoholics. Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research. 2002;26(8):1198–204. pmid:12198394.
  14. 14. Bolla KI, Rothman R, Cadet JL. Dose-related neurobehavioral effects of chronic cocaine use. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 1999;11(3):361–9. pmid:10440013.
  15. 15. Izquierdo A, Jentsch JD. Reversal learning as a measure of impulsive and compulsive behavior in addictions. Psychopharmacology. 2012;219(2):607–20. pmid:22134477; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3249486.
  16. 16. Sofuoglu M, DeVito EE, Waters AJ, Carroll KM. Cognitive enhancement as a treatment for drug addictions. Neuropharmacology. 2013;64:452–63. pmid:22735770; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3445733.
  17. 17. Miller BT, D'Esposito M. Searching for "the top" in top-down control. Neuron. 2005;48(4):535–8. pmid:16301170.
  18. 18. Chudasama Y. Animal models of prefrontal-executive function. Behavioral neuroscience. 2011;125(3):327–43. pmid:21639603.
  19. 19. Miller EK, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual review of neuroscience. 2001;24:167–202. pmid:11283309.
  20. 20. Volkow ND, Gur RC, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Moberg PJ, Ding YS, et al. Association between decline in brain dopamine activity with age and cognitive and motor impairment in healthy individuals. The American journal of psychiatry. 1998;155(3):344–9. pmid:9501743.
  21. 21. Cervenka S, Backman L, Cselenyi Z, Halldin C, Farde L. Associations between dopamine D2-receptor binding and cognitive performance indicate functional compartmentalization of the human striatum. NeuroImage. 2008;40(3):1287–95. pmid:18296072.
  22. 22. Slagter HA, Tomer R, Christian BT, Fox AS, Colzato LS, King CR, et al. PET evidence for a role for striatal dopamine in the attentional blink: functional implications. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2012;24(9):1932–40. pmid:22663253; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3536486.
  23. 23. Reeves SJ, Grasby PM, Howard RJ, Bantick RA, Asselin MC, Mehta MA. A positron emission tomography (PET) investigation of the role of striatal dopamine (D2) receptor availability in spatial cognition. NeuroImage. 2005;28(1):216–26. pmid:15979345.
  24. 24. Backman L, Ginovart N, Dixon RA, Wahlin TB, Wahlin A, Halldin C, et al. Age-related cognitive deficits mediated by changes in the striatal dopamine system. The American journal of psychiatry. 2000;157(4):635–7. pmid:10739428.
  25. 25. Chen PS, Yang YK, Lee YS, Yeh TL, Lee IH, Chiu NT, et al. Correlation between different memory systems and striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptor density: a single photon emission computed tomography study. Psychological medicine. 2005;35(2):197–204. pmid:15841677.
  26. 26. Lawrence AD, Weeks RA, Brooks DJ, Andrews TC, Watkins LH, Harding AE, et al. The relationship between striatal dopamine receptor binding and cognitive performance in Huntington's disease. Brain: a journal of neurology. 1998;121 (Pt 7):1343–55. pmid:9679785.
  27. 27. Trifilieff P, Martinez D. Imaging addiction: D2 receptors and dopamine signaling in the striatum as biomarkers for impulsivity. Neuropharmacology. 2014;76 Pt B:498–509. pmid:23851257.
  28. 28. London ED, Kohno M, Morales AM, Ballard ME. Chronic methamphetamine abuse and corticostriatal deficits revealed by neuroimaging. Brain research. 2014. pmid:25451127; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4418947.
  29. 29. Cunha PJ, Goncalves PD, Ometto M, Dos Santos B, Nicastri S, Busatto GF, et al. Executive cognitive dysfunction and ADHD in cocaine dependence: searching for a common cognitive endophenotype for addictive disorders. Frontiers in psychiatry. 2013;4:126. pmid:24155725; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3801150.
  30. 30. Woicik PA, Urban C, Alia-Klein N, Henry A, Maloney T, Telang F, et al. A pattern of perseveration in cocaine addiction may reveal neurocognitive processes implicit in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49(7):1660–9. pmid:21392517; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3100426.
  31. 31. Ballard ME, Mandelkern MA, Monterosso JR, Hsu E, Robertson CL, Ishibashi K, et al. Low Dopamine D2/D3 Receptor Availability is Associated with Steep Discounting of Delayed Rewards in Methamphetamine Dependence. The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology / official scientific journal of the Collegium Internationale Neuropsychopharmacologicum. 2015;18(7). pmid:25603861.
  32. 32. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams J. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders- Patient Edition (SCID-IP, Version 2.0). New York, NY: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 1996.
    • 33. Lee B, London ED, Poldrack RA, Farahi J, Nacca A, Monterosso JR, et al. Striatal dopamine d2/d3 receptor availability is reduced in methamphetamine dependence and is linked to impulsivity. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2009;29(47):14734–40. pmid:19940168; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2822639.
    • 34. Brown AK, Mandelkern MA, Farahi J, Robertson C, Ghahremani DG, Sumerel B, et al. Sex differences in striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability in smokers and non-smokers. The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology / official scientific journal of the Collegium Internationale Neuropsychopharmacologicum. 2012;15(7):989–94. pmid:22243762.
    • 35. Ghahremani DG, Lee B, Robertson CL, Tabibnia G, Morgan AT, De Shetler N, et al. Striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptors mediate response inhibition and related activity in frontostriatal neural circuitry in humans. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2012;32(21):9.
    • 36. Kohno M, Ghahremani DG, Morales AM, Robertson CL, Ishibashi K, Morgan AT, et al. Risk-Taking Behavior: Dopamine D2/D3 Receptors, Feedback, and Frontolimbic Activity. Cerebral cortex. 2013. pmid:23966584.
    • 37. Zorick T, Lee B, Mandelkern MA, Fong T, Robertson C, Ghahremani DG, et al. Low striatal dopamine receptor availability linked to caloric intake during abstinence from chronic methamphetamine abuse. Molecular psychiatry. 2012;17(6):569–71. pmid:22024765; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4111106.
    • 38. Heaton RK. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1981.
      • 39. Mukherjee J, Yang Z-Y, Das MK, Brown T. Fluorinated benzamide neuroleptics—III. Development of (S)-N-[(1-allyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)methyl]-5-(3-[18F]fluoropropyl)-2,3-dimethoxybenzamide as an improved dopamine D-2 receptor tracer. Nuclear Medicine and Biology. 1995;22(3):283–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0969-8051(94)00117-3. pmid:7627142
      • 40. Jenkinson M, Bannister P, Brady M, Smith S. Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. NeuroImage. 2002;17(2):825–41. pmid:12377157.
      • 41. Ardekani BA, Braun M, Hutton BF, Kanno I, Iida H. A fully automatic multimodality image registration algorithm. Journal of computer assisted tomography. 1995;19(4):615–23. pmid:7622696.
      • 42. Jenkinson M, Smith S. A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Medical image analysis. 2001;5(2):143–56. pmid:11516708.
      • 43. Martinez D, Slifstein M, Broft A, Mawlawi O, Hwang DR, Huang Y, et al. Imaging human mesolimbic dopamine transmission with positron emission tomography. Part II: amphetamine-induced dopamine release in the functional subdivisions of the striatum. Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism: official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 2003;23(3):285–300. Epub 2003/03/07. pmid:12621304.
      • 44. Mawlawi O, Martinez D, Slifstein M, Broft A, Chatterjee R, Hwang DR, et al. Imaging human mesolimbic dopamine transmission with positron emission tomography: I. Accuracy and precision of D(2) receptor parameter measurements in ventral striatum. Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism: official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 2001;21(9):1034–57. pmid:11524609.
      • 45. Wu Y, Carson RE. Noise reduction in the simplified reference tissue model for neuroreceptor functional imaging. Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism: official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 2002;22(12):1440–52. Epub 2002/12/07. pmid:12468889.
      • 46. Vandehey NT, Moirano JM, Converse AK, Holden JE, Mukherjee J, Murali D, et al. High-affinity dopamine D2/D3 PET radioligands 18F-fallypride and 11C-FLB457: a comparison of kinetics in extrastriatal regions using a multiple-injection protocol. Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism: official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 2010;30(5):994–1007. Epub 2009/12/31. pmid:20040928; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2897717.
      • 47. Lammertsma AA, Hume SP. Simplified reference tissue model for PET receptor studies. NeuroImage. 1996;4(3 Pt 1):153–8. pmid:9345505.
      • 48. Ichise M, Cohen RM, Carson RE. Noninvasive estimation of normalized distribution volume: application to the muscarinic-2 ligand [(18)F]FP-TZTP. Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism: official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 2008;28(2):420–30. Epub 2007/07/27. pmid:17653129.
      • 49. Mintun MA, Raichle ME, Kilbourn MR, Wooten GF, Welch MJ. A quantitative model for the in vivo assessment of drug binding sites with positron emission tomography. Annals of neurology. 1984;15(3):217–27. Epub 1984/03/01. pmid:6609679.
      • 50. Logan J, Fowler JS, Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Ding YS, Alexoff DL. Distribution volume ratios without blood sampling from graphical analysis of PET data. Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism: official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 1996;16(5):834–40. Epub 1996/09/01. pmid:8784228.
      • 51. Innis RB, Cunningham VJ, Delforge J, Fujita M, Gjedde A, Gunn RN, et al. Consensus nomenclature for in vivo imaging of reversibly binding radioligands. Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism: official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 2007;27(9):1533–9. Epub 2007/05/24. pmid:17519979.
      • 52. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO. The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. British journal of addiction. 1991;86(9):1119–27. Epub 1991/09/01. pmid:1932883.
      • 53. Volkow ND, Chang L, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Ding YS, Sedler M, et al. Low level of brain dopamine D2 receptors in methamphetamine abusers: association with metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex. The American journal of psychiatry. 2001;158(12):2015–21. pmid:11729018.
      • 54. Wang GJ, Smith L, Volkow ND, Telang F, Logan J, Tomasi D, et al. Decreased dopamine activity predicts relapse in methamphetamine abusers. Molecular psychiatry. 2012;17(9):918–25. pmid:21747399; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3261322.
      • 55. Moeller SJ, Tomasi D, Honorio J, Volkow ND, Goldstein RZ. Dopaminergic involvement during mental fatigue in health and cocaine addiction. Translational psychiatry. 2012;2:e176. pmid:23092980; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3565817.
      • 56. Johanson CE, Frey KA, Lundahl LH, Keenan P, Lockhart N, Roll J, et al. Cognitive function and nigrostriatal markers in abstinent methamphetamine abusers. Psychopharmacology. 2006;185(3):327–38. pmid:16518646.
      • 57. McCann UD, Kuwabara H, Kumar A, Palermo M, Abbey R, Brasic J, et al. Persistent cognitive and dopamine transporter deficits in abstinent methamphetamine users. Synapse. 2008;62(2):91–100. pmid:17992686.
      • 58. Lee B, Groman S, London ED, Jentsch JD. Dopamine D2/D3 receptors play a specific role in the reversal of a learned visual discrimination in monkeys. Neuropsychopharmacology: official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007;32(10):2125–34. pmid:17299511.
      • 59. Groman SM, Lee B, Seu E, James AS, Feiler K, Mandelkern MA, et al. Dysregulation of D(2)-mediated dopamine transmission in monkeys after chronic escalating methamphetamine exposure. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2012;32(17):5843–52. pmid:22539846; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3353813.
      • 60. Groman SM, Lee B, London ED, Mandelkern MA, James AS, Feiler K, et al. Dorsal striatal D2-like receptor availability covaries with sensitivity to positive reinforcement during discrimination learning. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2011;31(20):7291–9. pmid:21593313; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3114883.
      • 61. Cox SM, Frank MJ, Larcher K, Fellows LK, Clark CA, Leyton M, et al. Striatal D1 and D2 signaling differentially predict learning from positive and negative outcomes. NeuroImage. 2015;109:95–101. pmid:25562824.
      • 62. Frank MJ. Dynamic dopamine modulation in the basal ganglia: a neurocomputational account of cognitive deficits in medicated and nonmedicated Parkinsonism. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2005;17(1):51–72. pmid:15701239.
      • 63. Jocham G, Klein TA, Neumann J, von Cramon DY, Reuter M, Ullsperger M. Dopamine DRD2 polymorphism alters reversal learning and associated neural activity. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2009;29(12):3695–704. pmid:19321766; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2694507.
      • 64. Klein TA, Neumann J, Reuter M, Hennig J, von Cramon DY, Ullsperger M. Genetically determined differences in learning from errors. Science. 2007;318(5856):1642–5. pmid:18063800.
      • 65. Simon SL, Dean AC, Cordova X, Monterosso JR, London ED. Methamphetamine dependence and neuropsychological functioning: evaluating change during early abstinence. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs. 2010;71(3):335–44. pmid:20409426; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2859784.
      • 66. Grant S, Contoreggi C, London ED. Drug abusers show impaired performance in a laboratory test of decision making. Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(8):1180–7. pmid:10838152.
      • 67. Dean AC, Groman SM, Morales AM, London ED. An evaluation of the evidence that methamphetamine abuse causes cognitive decline in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology: official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(2):259–74. pmid:22948978; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3527116.
      • 68. Takahashi H, Kato M, Hayashi M, Okubo Y, Takano A, Ito H, et al. Memory and frontal lobe functions; possible relations with dopamine D2 receptors in the hippocampus. NeuroImage. 2007;34(4):1643–9. pmid:17174573.
      • 69. Takahashi H, Kato M, Takano H, Arakawa R, Okumura M, Otsuka T, et al. Differential contributions of prefrontal and hippocampal dopamine D(1) and D(2) receptors in human cognitive functions. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2008;28(46):12032–8. pmid:19005068.
      • 70. Lumme V, Aalto S, Ilonen T, Nagren K, Hietala J. Dopamine D2/D3 receptor binding in the anterior cingulate cortex and executive functioning. Psychiatry research. 2007;156(1):69–74. pmid:17683918.