Pharmacological Modulation of Belief Salience (MOBS)

October 9, 2019 updated by: King's College London

To provide an initial test of the hypothesis that dopamine mediates the motivational salience of stimuli beyond simple stimulus-reinforcement associations, the researchers propose to undertake a study of the modulation of a) levels of agreement or disagreement with; b) the perceived self- relevance; and c) the perceived interest of propositions expressing beliefs and values in healthy male volunteers using Ii) a dopamine antagonist (the D2-blocker haloperidol), and (ii) a dopamine precursor L-Dopa to increase CNS dopamine transmission.

The researchers will also administer the Salience Attribution Task (SAT) which will allow researchers to assess reward-learning processing of simple stimuli using a reaction-time game. This task was utilised by Roiser et al in order to explore whether delusions in medicated patients with schizophrenia were related to impairments in associative learning. The authors hypothesised that associative learning was influenced by D2 receptor blockade. The researchers extend this approach to examine the effect of dopamine modulation on the SAT as a measure of associative learning, a basic neuropsychological process that may be involved in the attribution of salience to beliefs.

Finally, the researchers will ask participants to perform a within-subjects dictator game to understand the influence of dopaminergic manipulation of the live attribution of harm intention to partners. The task has been previously validated online. Participants will play against 3 partners in a random order in each drug condition. Each partner will play the participant for 6 trials. One partner will always be fair, one will always be unfair, and one will be 50% unfair. We aim to understand whether potentiating dopamine has an additive effect on the harm intention attributions toward partners, regardless of the behaviour of the partner.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Detailed Description

Delusions in psychiatry are viewed as a form of aberrant belief. Consequently it is important to understand the cognitive and neural processes involved in beliefs to provide insights into how these processes go awry in the formation of delusions. Beliefs have been defined as 'a disposition to express, assent to, or otherwise act in accordance with some proposition'. Some beliefs are widely held within a given society (e.g the earth revolves around the sun; eating humans is wrong), whereas others vary in association with subcultural and individual differences (e.g God created the universe; abortion is wrong). Similarly, the conviction or agreement with which an individual's beliefs and values are held may change over time, to the extent that some beliefs and values may be lost, and others acquired. Also, the perceived relevance of beliefs and values to oneself may vary. For example, beliefs that the 'earth revolves around the sun' and that 'global warming is occurring' may both be held with conviction, but the latter may be perceived as having higher relevance to the self in terms of risk, and potential life-style changes. Hence, self-relevance is a dimension of beliefs that is potentially dissociable from the conviction (level of agreement) with which a belief is held. Further, some propositions expressing beliefs and values may be regarded as more interesting than others. This raises the question of what neurobiological processes contribute to the sense of conviction for, and perceived self-relevance and interest of beliefs and values?

The mesolimbic dopamine system is a candidate neural system implicated in mediating the motivational salience of perceptions and ideas, 'whereby events and thoughts come to grab attention, drive action, and influence goal-directed behaviour because of their association with reward or punishment'. In human studies, haloperidol has been used to show that dopamine activity influences action-value estimates represented in the striatum during instrumental conditioning, as would be expected from earlier studies of feedback-based learning. Still other data suggest that brain regions rich in dopaminergic inputs play a role in processing the salience of rewarding events. What is not known is if these dopaminergic rich regions also modulate the motivational salience of more complex 'stimuli' including ideas and beliefs.

Main hypothesis:

Prediction 1:

At a neurobiological level, the hypothesis is that the mesolimbic dopamine system is recruited to tag representations (ideas and beliefs) as motivationally salient. Potentiation of dopamine transmission should increase salience of beliefs (as indicated by increases in agreement, self-relevance and interest toward propositions within science, paranormal, politics, moral, and religious themes in the Beliefs and Values Inventory while attenuation of dopamine transmission should be associated with decreased salience. Answers of items within themes will be summed to create summary scores that will be split by agreement, interest, and self-relevance dimensions.

Prediction 2:

Potentiating dopamine be associated with increased attribution of harmful intent to partners across all trials (but trait paranoia will not be associated with variation in attributions of self-interest) of a within-subjects dictator game.

Prediction 3:

Attribution of harmful intent to different dictators will follow a dose-response relationship (fair < partially fair < unfair) across all ranges of dopamine potentiation. However, L-Dopa conditions will have a higher baseline of average harmful intent. There will be no interaction between dopamine manipulations and dictator fairness on attribution of harmful intent.

If these hypotheses receive empirical support, it would be relevant to understanding the role of the dopamine system in normal cognitive processes involved in expressing or acting in accordance with beliefs. It would also be relevant to determining the role of dopamine dysregulation in psychosis (in delusion formation). Also, reduced levels of the meaningfulness of experience following antipsychotic administration (as indexed by reduced agreement for and perceived self- relevance and interest of beliefs and values) would identify a potential reason for non-compliance with antipsychotic treatment.

Supplementary hypotheses:

There will be an interaction between condition (placebo, dopamine blockade, dopamine potentiation) x dimension (agreement, self-relevance, interest), whereby self-relevance and interest are affected more by dopamine modulation than agreement. This might explain why patients with delusions who are given antipsychotics will continue to say that they believe 'x,' but don't think about it as much, and cease to act upon it.

Aims:

To provide an initial test of the hypothesis that dopamine mediates the motivational salience of stimuli beyond simple stimulus-reinforcement associations, we propose to undertake a study of the modulation of a) levels of agreement or disagreement with; b) the perceived self- relevance; and c) the perceived interest of propositions expressing beliefs and values in healthy male volunteers using i) a dopamine antagonist (the D2-blocker haloperidol), and (ii) a dopamine precursor L-Dopa to increase CNS dopamine transmission.

The researchers will also administer the Salience Attribution Task (SAT) which will allow the researchers to assess reward-learning processing of simple stimuli using a reaction-time game. This task was utilised by Roiser et al. in order to explore whether delusions in medicated patients with schizophrenia were related to impairments in associative learning. The authors hypothesised that associative learning was influenced by D2 receptor blockade. We extend this approach to examine the effect of dopamine modulation on the SAT as a measure of associative learning, a basic neuropsychological process that may be involved in the attribution of salience to beliefs.

Finally, the researchers will ask participants to perform a within-subjects dictator game to understand the influence of dopaminergic manipulation of the. Participants will play against 3 partners in a random order in each drug condition. Each partner will play the participant for 6 trials. One partner will always be fair, one will always be unfair, and one will be 50% unfair. We aim to understand whether potentiating dopamine has an additive effect on the harm intention attributions toward partners, regardless of the behaviour of the partner.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

30

Phase

  • Phase 1

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • London, United Kingdom, W1T 7NF
        • Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 65 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

Male

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Healthy males between the ages of 18-65

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History or current psychiatric or neurological illness, history or current serious medical diagnosis, BMI outside of normal/healthy range, smoker over 5 cigarettes per day, recent use of drugs, non-english speaker.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Basic Science
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Placebo Comparator: Placebo
Placebo control
Administration of Placebo by pill.
Experimental: Haloperidol 3mg
Haloperidol
Administration of Haloperidol by pill.
Experimental: L-Dopa 150 mg & Domperidone 10mg
L-Dopa
Administration of L-dopa by pill.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Beliefs and Values Inventory (BVI)
Time Frame: 12 Months
Change in score between conditions on the BVI. Scores will be summed by item totals within theme (paranormal, religion, morality, politics, and science) and dimension (agreement, self-relevance, and interest).
12 Months
Salience Attribution Test (SAT)
Time Frame: 12 Months
Change in attribution of explicit and implicit salience between conditions on the SAT.
12 Months
Within-subjects dictator game
Time Frame: 12 Months

Participants will play against three different partners, each for six trials. In each trial, the player's partner will have the option to either split or take 10p from the player, so that the player either ends up with 5p or 0p. Players will play against one partner that will always split the money, one that will always take all of the money, and one that will 50% of the time split the money. After each trial, the player will be asked on a scale of 1-100 (1 being not at all and 100 being completely):

  1. How much do you think your partner was driven by a desire to increase their own bonus, and
  2. How much do you think your partner was driven by a desire to reduce your bonus.

Total of a. and b. will be added up for each style of partner for each arm.

12 Months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Big-5 Personality Questionnaire
Time Frame: 6 Months

The researchers will calculate the associations between personality dimensions of the Big-5 (extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) using the 25 item version (scores from 1-5 on a likert scale, with 5 meaning higher agreement with a statement) with variation within-subjects.

Each dimension will be totalled to calculate personality variation.

6 Months
Brief Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Experiences and Feelings
Time Frame: 6 Months

The researchers will calculate the associations between baseline schizotypy scores with variation within-subjects across conditions.

Unusual Experiences (hallucinations etc), Cognitive Disorganisation (cognitive difficulties), Introvertive Anhedonia (loss of pleasure etc.), and Impulsive Nonconformity (impulsiveness) sub-scales will be added up individually (from a scale of 1-5 for each item, 5 being higher agreement with an item) to calculate schizotypy on a number of dimensions.

6 Months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

June 1, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

September 1, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

September 1, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 23, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 22, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

November 27, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

October 10, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 9, 2019

Last Verified

February 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

Share anonymised data after collection on the Open Science Framework.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Placebo

Clinical Trials on Placebo - Cap

3
Subscribe