Data_Sheet_2_A Systematic Review on the Influences of Neurotoxicological Xenobiotic Compounds on Inhibitory Control.PDF (98.89 kB)
Download file

Data_Sheet_2_A Systematic Review on the Influences of Neurotoxicological Xenobiotic Compounds on Inhibitory Control.PDF

Download (98.89 kB)
posted on 04.07.2019, 12:27 by Cristian Perez-Fernandez, Pilar Flores, Fernando Sánchez-Santed

Background: Impulsive and compulsive traits represent a variety of maladaptive behaviors defined by the difficulties to stop an improper response and the control of a repeated behavioral pattern without sensitivity to changing contingencies, respectively. Otherwise, human beings are continuously exposed to plenty neurotoxicological agents which have been systematically linked to attentional, learning, and memory dysfunctions, both preclinical and clinical studies. Interestingly, the link between both impulsive and compulsive behaviors and the exposure to the most important xenobiotic compounds have been extensively developed; although the information has been rarely summarized. For this, the present systematic review schedule and analyze in depth the most important works relating different subtypes of the above-mentioned behaviors with 4 of the most important xenobiotic compounds: Lead (Pb), Methylmercury (MeHg), Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and Organophosphates (OP) in both preclinical and clinical models.

Methods: Systematic search strategy on PubMed databases was developed, and the most important information was structured both in text and in separate tables based on rigorous methodological quality assessment.

Results: For Lead, Methylmercury, Polychlorinated biphenyls and organophosphates, a total of 44 (31 preclinical), 34 (21), 38 (23), and 30 (17) studies were accepted for systematic synthesis, respectively. All the compounds showed an important empirical support on their role in the modulation of impulsive and, in lesser degree, compulsive traits, stronger and more solid in animal models with inconclusive results in humans in some cases (i.e., MeHg). However, preclinical and clinical studies have systematically focused on different subtypes of the above-mentioned behaviors, as well as impulsive choice or habit conformations have been rarely studied.

Discussion: The strong empirical support in preclinical studies contrasts with the lack of connection between preclinical and clinical models, as well as the different methodologies used. Further research should be focused on dissipate these differences as well as deeply study impulsive choice, decision making, risk taking, and cognitive flexibility, both in experimental animals and humans.