The differential effects of chlorpromazine and haloperidol on latent inhibition in healthy volunteers.

Latent inhibition (LI) is a measure of reduced learning about a stimulus to which there has been prior exposure without any consequence. It therefore requires a comparison between a pre-exposed (PE) and a non-pre-exposed (NPE) condition. Since, in animals, LI is disrupted by amphetamines and enhanced by antipsychotics, LI disruption has been proposed as a measure of the characteristic attentional deficit in schizophrenia: the inability to ignore irrelevant stimuli. The findings in humans are, however, inconsistent. In particular, a recent investigation suggested that since haloperidol disrupted LI in healthy volunteers, and LI was normal in non-medicated patients with schizophrenia, the previous findings in schizophrenic patients were entirely due to the negative effects of their medication on LI (Williams et al., 1998). We conducted two studies of antipsychotic drug effects on auditory LI using a within-subject, parallel group design in healthy volunteers. In the first of these, single doses of haloperidol (1 mg. i.v.) were compared with paroxetine (20 mg p.o.) and placebo, and in the second, chlorpromazine (100 mg p.o.) was compared with lorazepam (2 mg. p.o.) and placebo. Eye movements, neuropsychological test performance (spatial working memory (SWM), Tower of London and intra/extra dimensional shift, from the CANTAB test battery) and visual analogue rating scales, were also included as other measures of attention and frontal lobe function. Haloperidol was associated with a non-significant reduction in LI scores, and dysphoria/akathisia (Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale) in three-quarters of the subjects. The LI finding may be explained by increased distractibility which was indicated by an increase in antisaccade directional errors in this group. In contrast, LI was significantly increased by chlorpromazine but not by an equally sedative dose of lorazepam (both drugs causing marked decreases in peak saccadic velocity). Paroxetine had no effect on LI, eye movements or CANTAB neuropsychological test performance. Haloperidol was associated with impaired SWM, which correlated with the degree of dysphoria/akathisia, but no other drug effects on CANTAB measures were detected. We conclude that the effect of antipsychotics on LI is both modality and pharmacologically dependent and that further research using a wider range of antipsychotic compounds is necessary to clarify the cognitive effects of these drugs, and to determine whether there are important differences between them.

Identification of tone duration, line length and letter position: An experimental approach to timing and working memory deficits in schizophrenia.

Patients with schizophrenia display numerous cognitive deficits, including problems in working memory, time estimation, and absolute identification of stimuli. Research in these fields has traditionally been conducted independently. We examined these cognitive processes using tasks that are structurally similar and that yield rich error data. Relative to healthy control participants (n = 20), patients with schizophrenia (n = 20) were impaired on a duration identification task and a probed-recall memory task but not on a line-length identification task. These findings do not support the notion of a global impairment in absolute identification in schizophrenia. However, the authors suggest that some aspect of temporal information processing is indeed disturbed in schizophrenia.

Eye movements and neurocognitive function in treatment resistant schizophrenia: a pilot study.

Objectives: It is increasingly important to develop predictors of treatment response and outcome in schizophrenia. Neuropsychological impairments, particularly those reflecting frontal lobe function, appear to predict poor outcome. Eye movement abnormalities probably also reflect frontal lobe deficits. We wished to see if these two aspects of schizophrenia were correlated and whether they could distinguish a treatment resistant from a treatment responsive group. Methods: Ten treatment resistant schizophrenic patients were compared with ten treatment responsive patients on three eye movement paradigms (reflexive saccades, antisaccades and smooth pursuit), clinical psychopathology (BPRS, SANS and CGI) and a neuropsychological test battery designed to detect frontal lobe dysfunction. Ten aged-matched controls also carried out the eye movement tasks. Results: Both treatment responsive (p = 0.038) and treatment resistant (p = 0.007) patients differed significantly from controls on the antisaccade task. The treatment resistant group had a higher error rate than the treatment responsive group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Similar poor neuropsychological test performance was found in both groups. Conclusions: To demonstrate the biological differences characteristic of treatment resistance, larger sample sizes and wider differences in outcome between the two groups are necessary.