Rapid tryptophan depletion improves decision-making cognition in healthy humans without affecting reversal learning or set shifting

Rapid tryptophan (Trp) depletion (RTD) has been reported to cause deterioration in the quality of decision making and impaired reversal learning, while leaving attentional set shifting relatively unimpaired. These findings have been attributed to a more powerful neuromodulatory effect of reduced 5-HT on ventral prefrontal cortex (PFC) than on dorsolateral PFC. In view of the limited number of reports, the aim of this study was to independently replicate these findings using the same test paradigms. Healthy human subjects without a personal or family history of affective disorder were assessed using a computerized decision making/gambling task and the CANTAB ID/ED attentional set-shifting task under Trp-depleted (n=17; nine males and eight females) or control (n=15; seven males and eight females) conditions, in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group design. There was no significant effect of RTD on set shifting, reversal learning, risk taking, impulsivity, or subjective mood. However, RTD significantly altered decision making such that depleted subjects chose the more likely of two possible outcomes significantly more often than controls. This is in direct contrast to the previous report that subjects chose the more likely outcome significantly less often following RTD. In the terminology of that report, our result may be interpreted as improvement in the quality of decision making following RTD. This contrast between studies highlights the variability in the cognitive effects of RTD between apparently similar groups of healthy subjects, and suggests the need for future RTD studies to control for a range of personality, family history, and genetic factors that may be associated with 5-HT function.

Making Risk Visible. The role of images in the assessment of (cancer) genetic risk

Whilst analysis of 'risk' (in its many conceptual shapes) has loomed large in both medicine and social sciences over the past 25 years, detailed investigations as to how risk assessments are actually put together (in either lay or professional contexts) are few in number. The studies that are available usually focus on the use of words or everyday conversation in assembling risk. Talking about risk is, of course, important, but what tends to be ignored is the fact that risk can be and is often made visible. For example, it can be made visible through the use of tables, charts, diagrams and various kinds of sophisticated laboratory images. This paper concentrates on the role of such images in the context of a cancer genetics clinic and its associated laboratory. Precisely how these images are tied into the production of risk estimates, how professionals discuss and use such images in clinical work, and how professionals reference them to display facts about risk is the focus of the paper. The paper concludes by highlighting the significance of different kinds of visibility for an understanding of genetic abnormalities and how such differences might impact on the attempts of lay people to get to grips with risk.