Banner
    Caffeine Equivalent To Two Cups Of Coffee Per Day Enhances Memory
    By News Staff | January 13th 2014 10:12 AM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    A double-blind trial has determined that tea and coffee aren't just morning pick-me-ups, they are also a memory enhancer.

    That goes for carbonated drinks containing caffeine also.


    According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 90 percent of people worldwide consume caffeine in one form or another. In the United States, 80 percent of adults consume caffeine every day. The average adult has an intake of about 200 milligrams, roughly one strong cup of coffee or two small cups of coffee per day. 

    Michael Yassa, assistant professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues found that caffeine has a positive effect on long-term memory in humans. They found that caffeine enhances certain memories at least up to 24 hours after it is consumed.

    In the double-blind trial, participants who did not regularly eat or drink caffeinated products received either a placebo or a 200-milligram caffeine tablet five minutes after studying a series of images. Salivary samples were taken from the participants before they took the tablets to measure their caffeine levels. Samples were taken again one, three and 24 hours afterwards. 

    The next day, both groups were tested on their ability to recognize images from the previous day's study session. On the test, some of the visuals were the same as from the day before, some were new additions and some were similar but not the same as the items previously viewed. More members of the caffeine group were able to correctly identify the new images as "similar" to previously viewed images versus erroneously citing them as the same.

    The brain's ability to recognize the difference between two similar but not identical items, called pattern separation, reflects a deeper level of memory retention, the researchers said.

    "We've always known that caffeine has cognitive-enhancing effects, but its particular effects on strengthening memories and making them resistant to forgetting has never been examined in detail in humans," said Yassa, senior author of the paper. "We report for the first time a specific effect of caffeine on reducing forgetting over 24 hours. 

    "If we used a standard recognition memory task without these tricky similar items, we would have found no effect of caffeine. However, using these items requires the brain to make a more difficult discrimination -- what we call pattern separation, which seems to be the process that is enhanced by caffeine in our case."

    The memory center in the human brain is the hippocampus, a seahorse-shaped area in the medial temporal lobe of the brain. The hippocampus is the switchbox for all short-term and long-term memories. Most research done on memory -- the effects of concussions in athletics to war-related head injuries to dementia in the aging population -- are focused on this area of the brain.

    Until now, caffeine's effects on long-term memory had not been examined in detail. Of the few studies done, the general consensus was that caffeine has little or no effect on long-term memory retention.

    The research is different from prior experiments because the subjects took the caffeine tablets only after they had viewed and attempted to memorize the images.

    "Almost all prior studies administered caffeine before the study session, so if there is an enhancement, it's not clear if it's due to caffeine's effects on attention, vigilance, focus or other factors. By administering caffeine after the experiment, we rule out all of these effects and make sure that if there is an enhancement, it's due to memory and nothing else," said Yassa. "The next step for us is to figure out the brain mechanisms underlying this enhancement. We can use brain-imaging techniques to address these questions. We also know that caffeine is associated with healthy longevity and may have some protective effects from cognitive decline like Alzheimer's disease. These are certainly important questions for the future."


    Citation: Daniel Borota, Elizabeth Murray, Gizem Keceli, Allen Chang, Joseph M Watabe, Maria Ly, John P Toscano, Michael A Yassa, 'Post-study caffeine administration enhances memory consolidation in humans', Nature Neuroscience 12 Jan 2014 doi:10.1038/nn.3623 

    Comments

    Michael J. McFadden
    Very interesting. I believe they've shown some similar effects with a related compound: nicotine.
    Heh, of course you won't see that one headlined as much: it's sorta what Al Gore would call "An Inconvenient Truth." Here's one study along those lines: 

      http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/09/nicotine-patch-may-improve-memory/ 

    although it's not as strong as another study I'm only vaguely remembering (sorry, evidently didn't smoke enough today! LOL!) but can't find at the moment. 

    - MJM
    rholley
    You might find this of use:

    Nicotine as a Cognitive Enhancer by David M. Warburton, Department of Psychology, University of Reading, 1991

    http://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/1992-warburton.pdf

    I was told that, following his initial results, Warburton received funding from the tobacco industry, and was the target of much suspicion and opprobrium (or colloquially, ‘stick’) because of this.  But this, paradoxically, made his work more reliable, because he was extra-careful not to allow cognitive bias into his work.

    On the contrary, work not funded by the tobacco industry was less reliable, because of cognitive bias and the tendency to interpret results in a nicotine-adverse way, even if only from wanting to be on ‘the good side’. 

    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Michael J. McFadden
    Robert, yes, that's been my own general perception throughout years of research in this area.  The "good guys" producing antismoking studies with grant money coming from sources that specifically are looking for antismoking results will jiggle, joggle, and juggle until they can squeeze out the "correct" results, or, if that totally fails, find some way to describe the poor results in "correct" terms.
    E.G. in "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" I examine one study that was headlined all over the world showing that  ETS exposure was giving male children high blood pressure.  One one actually read the study rather than the abstract, it became apparent that not only were they talking about a minuscule correlational rise of single systolic point in four to eight-year-olds but they were also ignoring the fact that their same piece of research showed a 1.5 point DECREASE in the systolic readings for girls!  

    The only mention of that anywhere I could find in the media was a place where one of the researchers defended their stance by saying that a decrease could ALSO be something of concern.  Seriously.   Heh, can you imagine anyone trying to push the idea that eating an apple a day correlated with a 1.5 point decrease in systolic BP of children and therefore apples should be avoided?

    Then there's a very recent Wang study of Lung Cancer that used a 90,000 woman dataset.  They indicated that while "most" of the subgroups studied did not show a significant relationship with ETS exposure, there WAS one that showed a relationship of "borderline significance" of ETS causing lung cancer.

    Do you know what they meant by "borderline significance"?  A result that INCLUDED the null 1.0 value within the confidence interval.  Have you EVER, in *ANY* other field of scientific research, heard of a finding that included 1.0 being described as "borderline significant"?

    So, yes, I think the researchers openly working under any sort of tobacco industry funding these days DO produce work of a far higher standard of design, interpretation, and ultimate presentation than that produced by researchers wearing the "white hats" and expecting that their research results should simply be accepted because they're "for the greater good."

    - MJM