Neuroscience explanations really do satisfy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the seductive allure of neuroscience.

Extraneous neuroscience information improves ratings of scientific explanations, and affects mock juror decisions in many studies, but others have yielded little to no effect. To establish the magnitude of this effect, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis using 60 experiments from 28 publications. We found a mild but highly significant effect, with substantial heterogeneity. Planned subgroup analyses revealed that within-subjects studies, where people can compare the same material with and without neuroscience, and those using text, have stronger effects than between-subjects designs, and studies using brain image stimuli. We serendipitously found that effect sizes were stronger on outcomes of evaluating satisfaction or metacomprehension, compared with jury verdicts or assessments of convincingness. In conclusion, there is more than one type of neuroscience explanations effect. Irrelevant neuroscience does have a seductive allure, especially on self-appraised satisfaction and understanding, and when presented as text.

Muscarinic M1, but not M4, receptor antagonism impairs divided attention in male rats.

Divided attention may be more important than ever to comprehend, given ubiquitous distractors in modern living. In humans, concern has been expressed about the negative impact of distraction in education, the home, and the workplace. While acetylcholine supports divided attention, in part via muscarinic receptors, little is known about the specific muscarinic subtypes that may contribute. We designed a novel, high-response rate test of auditory sustained attention, in which rats complete variable-ratio runs on one of two levers, rather than emitting a single response. By doing this, we can present a secondary visual distractor task during some trials, for which a correct nosepoke response is reinforced with a more palatable food pellet. The nonspecific muscarinic antagonist scopolamine impaired performance, and slowed and reduced lever press activity. We then explored antagonists that preferentially block the M1 and M4 subtypes, because these receptors are potential therapeutic targets for cognitive enhancers. Telenzepine, an M1-preferring antagonist, impaired divided attention performance, but not performance of the attention task without distraction. Telenzepine also had fewer nonspecific effects than scopolamine. In contrast, the M4-preferring antagonist tropicamide had no effects. Analysis of overall behavior also indicated that accuracy in the main attention task decreased as a function of engagement with the distractor task. These results implicate the M1 receptor in divided attention.