↓ Skip to main content

Donepezil Does Not Enhance Perceptual Learning in Adults with Amblyopia: A Pilot Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Donepezil Does Not Enhance Perceptual Learning in Adults with Amblyopia: A Pilot Study
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00448
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susana T. L. Chung, Roger W. Li, Michael A. Silver, Dennis M. Levi

Abstract

Amblyopia is a developmental disorder that results in a wide range of visual deficits. One proven approach to recovering vision in adults with amblyopia is perceptual learning (PL). Recent evidence suggests that neuromodulators can enhance adult plasticity. In this pilot study, we asked whether donepezil, a cholinesterase inhibitor, enhances visual PL in adults with amblyopia. Nine adults with amblyopia were first trained on a low-contrast single-letter identification task while taking a daily dose (5 mg) of donepezil throughout training. Following 10,000 trials of training, participants showed improved contrast sensitivity for identifying single letters. However, the magnitude of improvement was no greater than, and the rate of improvement was slower than, that obtained in a previous study in which six adults with amblyopia were trained using an identical task and protocol but without donepezil (Chung et al., 2012). In addition, we measured transfer of learning effects to other tasks and found that for donepezil, the post-pre performance ratios in both a size-limited (acuity) and a spacing-limited (crowding) task were not significantly different from those found in the previous study without donepezil administration. After an interval of several weeks, six participants returned for a second course of training on identifying flanked (crowded) letters, again with concurrent donepezil administration. Although this task has previously been shown to be highly amenable to PL in adults with amblyopia (Chung et al., 2012; Hussain et al., 2012), only one observer in our study showed significant learning over 10,000 trials of training. Auxiliary experiments showed that the lack of a learning effect on this task during donepezil administration was not due to either the order of training of the two tasks or the use of a sequential training paradigm. Our results reveal that cholinergic enhancement with donepezil during training does not improve or speed up PL of single-letter identification in adults with amblyopia, and importantly, it may even halt learning and transfer related to a crowding task. Clinical Trial Registration: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03109314).

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Psychology 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2021.
All research outputs
#6,931,729
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,491
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,203
of 327,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#48
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.