Microdosing psychedelics has no impact on cognitive function in naturalistic settings
In a within-subjects naturalistic study of 17 people repeatedly tested with the CNSVS battery, psychedelic microdosing produced no measurable improvement or impairment across processing speed, attention, executive function, working memory or memory. The authors suggest perceived benefits of microdosing are psychological rather than neurocognitive and note that remote cognitive batteries are feasible for longitudinal cross‑cultural research.
Authors
- Dinkelacker, J.
- Pop, I.
Published
Abstract
Background and aim: Subjective and anecdotal accounts link ingestion of psychedelic microdoses, quantities small enough to retain perceptual clarity, to enhanced cognitive function and performance. In this study we review current evidence, test the link between domains of cognitive function and microdosing psychedelics and evaluate a remote testing approach for cognitive function.
Methods
In an observational within-subjects design, we repeatedly assessed 17 participants during their microdosing regimen using the CNSVS neurocognitive battery in a naturalistic setting.
Results
We found that neither the day of microdosing, nor the day after microdosing are significantly linked to enhanced or diminished performance on processing speed, sustained attention, inhibitory control, set shifting, working memory, visual memory and verbal memory.
Conclusion
Microdosing psychedelics may act on psychological rather than neurocognitive pathways to induce a subjective feeling of performance enhancement. The use of remote cognitive batteries might benefit longitudinal cross-cultural studies by reducing participant burden
Research Summary of 'Microdosing psychedelics has no impact on cognitive function in naturalistic settings'
Introduction
Earlier research and widespread anecdotal reports describe microdosing—regular ingestion of sub-perceptual amounts of classical psychedelics such as LSD or psilocybin—as an approach people use to boost cognition, mood and productivity. Experimental studies of medium and large doses have documented dose-dependent effects on attention, memory and executive functions, and some neurobiological mechanisms have been proposed (for example, effects on BDNF and functional connectivity). However, evidence for cognitive benefits from microdoses is sparse and mixed: some laboratory microdosing studies report small improvements in particular individuals, others find no change or slight impairments, and most prior work took place in tightly controlled experimental settings rather than in users' daily environments. This study, led by Dinkelacker and colleagues, set out to assess whether microdosing produces measurable changes in multiple neurocognitive domains when practised in naturalistic settings. The investigators aimed to provide a broad, within-subjects, longitudinal examination of processing speed, sustained attention, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, working memory, verbal memory and visual memory using remote testing and experience sampling over a 28-day period. By allowing participants to continue their habitual microdosing routines, the researchers sought to increase ecological validity relative to laboratory-based studies and to test whether acute (same-day or next-day) cognitive effects are detectable in everyday conditions.
Expert Research Summaries
Go Pro to access AI-powered section-by-section summaries, editorial takes, and the full research toolkit.
Full Text PDF
Full Paper PDF
Pro members can view the original manuscript directly in the browser.
Study Details
- Study Typeindividual
- Journal
- Topics
- APA Citation
Dinkelacker, J., & Pop, I. (2023). Microdosing psychedelics has no impact on cognitive function in naturalistic settings. Journal of Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry, 14(4), 111-117. https://doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2023.14.00738
References (22)
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Barrett, F. S., Krimmel, S. R., Griffiths, R. R. et al. · NeuroImage (2020)
Bedford, P., Hauke, D. J., Wang, Z. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2022)
Daws, R. E., Timmermann, C., Giribaldi, B. et al. · Nature Medicine (2022)
Dos Santos, R. G., Osório, F. L., Crippa, J. A. et al. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2016)
Kuypers, K. P. C., Erritzoe, D., Knudsen, G. M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2019)
Rootman, J. M., Kryskow, P., Harvey, K. et al. · Scientific Reports (2021)
Doss, M. K., Považan, M., Rosenberg, M. D. et al. · Translational Psychiatry (2021)
Kuiperes, Z., Schreiber, R. · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (2021)
Barrett, F. S., Carbonaro, T. M., Hurwitz, E. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2018)
Hutten, N. R. P. W., Mason, N. L., Dolder, P. C. et al. · European Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Show all 22 referencesShow fewer
Bershad, A. K., Schepers, S. T., Bremmer, M. P. et al. · Biological Psychiatry (2019)
Umbricht, A., Vollenweider, F. X., Schmid, L. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2003)
Vollenweider, F. X., Csomor, P. A., Knappe, B. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2007)
Basedow, L. A., Riemer, T. G., Reiche, S. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2021)
Quednow, B. B., Kometer, M., Geyer, M. A. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2011)
Cavanna, F., Muller, S., de la Fuente, L. A. et al. · Translational Psychiatry (2022)
Wießner, I., Olivieri, R., Falchi, M. et al. · European Neuropsychopharmacology (2022)
Pop, I., Dinkelacker, J. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2023)
Pop, I., Dinkelacker, J. · Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (2023)
Bouso, J. C., González, D., Fondevila, S. et al. · PLOS ONE (2012)
Hartogsohn, I. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Kaertner, L. S., Steinborn, M. B., Kettner, H. et al. · Scientific Reports (2021)
Your Personal Research Library
Go Pro to save papers, add notes, rate studies, and organize your research into custom shelves.