Search

Item does not contain fulltext, People often confuse smell loss with taste loss, so it is unclear how much gustatory function is reduced in patients self-reporting taste loss. Our pre-registered cross-sectional study design included an online survey in 12 languages with instructions for self-administering chemosensory tests with 10 household items. Between June 2020 and March 2021, 10,953 individuals participated. Of these, 5,225 self-reported a respiratory illness and were grouped based on their reported COVID test results: COVID-positive (COVID+, N = 3,356), COVID-negative (COVID-, N = 602), and COVID unknown for those waiting for a test result (COVID?, N = 1,267). The participants who reported no respiratory illness were grouped by symptoms: sudden smell/taste changes (STC, N = 4,445), other symptoms excluding smell or taste changes (OthS, N = 832), and no symptoms (NoS, N = 416). Taste, smell, and oral irritation intensities and self-assessed abilities were rated on visual analog scales. Compared to the NoS group, COVID+ was associated with a 21% reduction in taste (95% confidence interval (CI): 15-28%), 47% in smell (95% CI: 37-56%), and 17% in oral irritation (95% CI: 10–25%) intensity. There were medium to strong correlations between perceived intensities and self-reported abilities (r = 0.84 for smell, r = 0.68 for taste, and r = 0.37 for oral irritation). Our study demonstrates that COVID-19-positive individuals report taste dysfunction when self-tested with stimuli that have little to none olfactory components. Assessing the smell and taste intensity of household items is a promising, cost-effective screening tool that complements self-reports and may help to disentangle taste loss from smell loss. However, it does not replace standardized validated psychophysical tests.

Background: Sudden smell loss is a specific early symptom of COVID-19, which, prior to the emergence of Omicron, had estimated prevalence of ~40% to 75%. Chemosensory impairments affect physical and mental health, and dietary behavior. Thus, it is critical to understand the rate and time course of smell recovery. The aim of this cohort study was to characterize smell function and recovery up to 11 months post COVID-19 infection. Methods: This longitudinal survey of individuals suffering COVID-19-related smell loss assessed disease symptoms and gustatory and olfactory function. Participants (n=12,313) who completed an initial survey (S1) about respiratory symptoms, chemosensory function and COVID-19 diagnosis between April and September 2020, were invited to complete a follow-up survey (S2). Between September 2020 and February 2021, 27.5% participants responded (n=3,386), with 1,468 being diagnosed with COVID-19 and suffering co-occurring smell and taste loss at the beginning of their illness. Results: At follow-up (median time since COVID-19 onset ~200 days), ~60% of women and ~48% of men reported less than 80% of their pre-illness smell ability. Taste typically recovered faster than smell, and taste loss rarely persisted if smell recovered. Prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia was ~10% of participants in S1 and increased substantially in S2: ~47% for parosmia and ~25% for phantosmia. Persistent smell impairment was associated with more symptoms overall, suggesting it may be a key marker of long-COVID illness. The ability to smell during COVID-19 was rated slightly lower by those who did not eventually recover their pre-illness ability to smell at S2. Conclusions: While smell ability improves for many individuals who lost it during acute COVID-19, the prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia increases substantially over time. Olfactory dysfunction is associated with broader persistent symptoms of COVID-19, and may last for many months following acute COVID-19. Tast

Item does not contain fulltext, Background: Sudden smell loss is a specific early symptom of COVID-19, which, prior to the emergence of Omicron, had estimated prevalence of ~40% to 75%. Chemosensory impairments affect physical and mental health, and dietary behavior. Thus, it is critical to understand the rate and time course of smell recovery. The aim of this cohort study was to characterize smell function and recovery up to 11 months post COVID-19 infection. Methods: This longitudinal survey of individuals suffering COVID-19-related smell loss assessed disease symptoms and gustatory and olfactory function. Participants (n=12,313) who completed an initial survey (S1) about respiratory symptoms, chemosensory function and COVID-19 diagnosis between April and September 2020, were invited to complete a follow-up survey (S2). Between September 2020 and February 2021, 27.5% participants responded (n=3,386), with 1,468 being diagnosed with COVID-19 and suffering co-occurring smell and taste loss at the beginning of their illness. Results: At follow-up (median time since COVID-19 onset ~200 days), ~60% of women and ~48% of men reported less than 80% of their pre-illness smell ability. Taste typically recovered faster than smell, and taste loss rarely persisted if smell recovered. Prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia was ~10% of participants in S1 and increased substantially in S2: ~47% for parosmia and ~25% for phantosmia. Persistent smell impairment was associated with more symptoms overall, suggesting it may be a key marker of long-COVID illness. The ability to smell during COVID-19 was rated slightly lower by those who did not eventually recover their pre-illness ability to smell at S2. Conclusions: While smell ability improves for many individuals who lost it during acute COVID-19, the prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia increases substantially over time. Olfactory dysfunction is associated with broader persistent symptoms of COVID-19, and may last for many months following acute COVID-19. Taste l

Item does not contain fulltext, Background: Sudden smell loss is a specific early symptom of COVID-19, which, prior to the emergence of Omicron, had estimated prevalence of ~40% to 75%. Chemosensory impairments affect physical and mental health, and dietary behavior. Thus, it is critical to understand the rate and time course of smell recovery. The aim of this cohort study was to characterize smell function and recovery up to 11 months post COVID-19 infection. Methods: This longitudinal survey of individuals suffering COVID-19-related smell loss assessed disease symptoms and gustatory and olfactory function. Participants (n=12,313) who completed an initial survey (S1) about respiratory symptoms, chemosensory function and COVID-19 diagnosis between April and September 2020, were invited to complete a follow-up survey (S2). Between September 2020 and February 2021, 27.5% participants responded (n=3,386), with 1,468 being diagnosed with COVID-19 and suffering co-occurring smell and taste loss at the beginning of their illness. Results: At follow-up (median time since COVID-19 onset ~200 days), ~60% of women and ~48% of men reported less than 80% of their pre-illness smell ability. Taste typically recovered faster than smell, and taste loss rarely persisted if smell recovered. Prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia was ~10% of participants in S1 and increased substantially in S2: ~47% for parosmia and ~25% for phantosmia. Persistent smell impairment was associated with more symptoms overall, suggesting it may be a key marker of long-COVID illness. The ability to smell during COVID-19 was rated slightly lower by those who did not eventually recover their pre-illness ability to smell at S2. Conclusions: While smell ability improves for many individuals who lost it during acute COVID-19, the prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia increases substantially over time. Olfactory dysfunction is associated with broader persistent symptoms of COVID-19, and may last for many months following acute COVID-19. Taste l

Item does not contain fulltext, Background: Sudden smell loss is a specific early symptom of COVID-19, which, prior to the emergence of Omicron, had estimated prevalence of ~40% to 75%. Chemosensory impairments affect physical and mental health, and dietary behavior. Thus, it is critical to understand the rate and time course of smell recovery. The aim of this cohort study was to characterize smell function and recovery up to 11 months post COVID-19 infection. Methods: This longitudinal survey of individuals suffering COVID-19-related smell loss assessed disease symptoms and gustatory and olfactory function. Participants (n=12,313) who completed an initial survey (S1) about respiratory symptoms, chemosensory function and COVID-19 diagnosis between April and September 2020, were invited to complete a follow-up survey (S2). Between September 2020 and February 2021, 27.5% participants responded (n=3,386), with 1,468 being diagnosed with COVID-19 and suffering co-occurring smell and taste loss at the beginning of their illness. Results: At follow-up (median time since COVID-19 onset ~200 days), ~60% of women and ~48% of men reported less than 80% of their pre-illness smell ability. Taste typically recovered faster than smell, and taste loss rarely persisted if smell recovered. Prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia was ~10% of participants in S1 and increased substantially in S2: ~47% for parosmia and ~25% for phantosmia. Persistent smell impairment was associated with more symptoms overall, suggesting it may be a key marker of long-COVID illness. The ability to smell during COVID-19 was rated slightly lower by those who did not eventually recover their pre-illness ability to smell at S2. Conclusions: While smell ability improves for many individuals who lost it during acute COVID-19, the prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia increases substantially over time. Olfactory dysfunction is associated with broader persistent symptoms of COVID-19, and may last for many months following acute COVID-19. Taste l

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 228204.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), In a preregistered, cross-sectional study we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC=0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4

Contains fulltext : 231355.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 228204.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), In a preregistered, cross-sectional study we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC=0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4

Contains fulltext : 231355.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 242212.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 228204.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), In a preregistered, cross-sectional study we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC=0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4

Contains fulltext : 231355.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 242212.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 221636.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation and initial results of a multi-lingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in three distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, 8 other, ages 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± SD), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell, but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

Contains fulltext : 221636.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation and initial results of a multi-lingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in three distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, 8 other, ages 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± SD), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell, but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

Contains fulltext : 221636.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation and initial results of a multi-lingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in three distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, 8 other, ages 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± SD), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell, but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

Contains fulltext : 202660.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), In an increasingly complex information society, demands for cognitive functioning are growing steadily. In recent years, numerous strategies to augment brain function have been proposed. Evidence for their efficacy (or lack thereof) and side effects has prompted discussions about ethical, societal, and medical implications. In the public debate, cognitive enhancement is often seen as a monolithic phenomenon. On a closer look, however, cognitive enhancement turns out to be a multifaceted concept: There is not one cognitive enhancer that augments brain function per se, but a great variety of interventions that can be clustered into biochemical, physical, and behavioral enhancement strategies. These cognitive enhancers differ in their mode of action, the cognitive domain they target, the time scale they work on, their availability and side effects, and how they differentially affect different groups of subjects. Here we disentangle the dimensions of cognitive enhancement, review prominent examples of cognitive enhancers that differ across these dimensions, and thereby provide a framework for both theoretical discussions and empirical research.

Contains fulltext : 202660.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), In an increasingly complex information society, demands for cognitive functioning are growing steadily. In recent years, numerous strategies to augment brain function have been proposed. Evidence for their efficacy (or lack thereof) and side effects has prompted discussions about ethical, societal, and medical implications. In the public debate, cognitive enhancement is often seen as a monolithic phenomenon. On a closer look, however, cognitive enhancement turns out to be a multifaceted concept: There is not one cognitive enhancer that augments brain function per se, but a great variety of interventions that can be clustered into biochemical, physical, and behavioral enhancement strategies. These cognitive enhancers differ in their mode of action, the cognitive domain they target, the time scale they work on, their availability and side effects, and how they differentially affect different groups of subjects. Here we disentangle the dimensions of cognitive enhancement, review prominent examples of cognitive enhancers that differ across these dimensions, and thereby provide a framework for both theoretical discussions and empirical research.

Contains fulltext : 202660.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), In an increasingly complex information society, demands for cognitive functioning are growing steadily. In recent years, numerous strategies to augment brain function have been proposed. Evidence for their efficacy (or lack thereof) and side effects has prompted discussions about ethical, societal, and medical implications. In the public debate, cognitive enhancement is often seen as a monolithic phenomenon. On a closer look, however, cognitive enhancement turns out to be a multifaceted concept: There is not one cognitive enhancer that augments brain function per se, but a great variety of interventions that can be clustered into biochemical, physical, and behavioral enhancement strategies. These cognitive enhancers differ in their mode of action, the cognitive domain they target, the time scale they work on, their availability and side effects, and how they differentially affect different groups of subjects. Here we disentangle the dimensions of cognitive enhancement, review prominent examples of cognitive enhancers that differ across these dimensions, and thereby provide a framework for both theoretical discussions and empirical research.

Contains fulltext : 167835.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Ghrelin regulates energy homeostasis in various species and enhances memory in rodent models. In humans, the role of ghrelin in cognitive processes has yet to be characterized. Here we show in a double-blind randomized crossover design that acute administration of ghrelin alters encoding-related brain activity, however does not enhance memory formation in humans. Twenty-one healthy young male participants had to memorize food- and non-food-related words presented on a background of a virtual navigational route while undergoing fMRI recordings. After acute ghrelin administration, we observed decreased post-encoding resting state fMRI connectivity between the caudate nucleus and the insula, amygdala, and orbitofrontal cortex. In addition, brain activity related to subsequent memory performance was modulated by ghrelin. On the next day, however, no differences were found in free word recall or cued location-word association recall between conditions; and ghrelin's effects on brain activity or functional connectivity were unrelated to memory performance. Further, ghrelin had no effect on a cognitive test battery comprising tests for working memory, fluid reasoning, creativity, mental speed, and attention. In conclusion, in contrast to studies with animal models, we did not find any evidence for the potential of ghrelin acting as a short-term cognitive enhancer in humans.

Contains fulltext : 167835.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Ghrelin regulates energy homeostasis in various species and enhances memory in rodent models. In humans, the role of ghrelin in cognitive processes has yet to be characterized. Here we show in a double-blind randomized crossover design that acute administration of ghrelin alters encoding-related brain activity, however does not enhance memory formation in humans. Twenty-one healthy young male participants had to memorize food- and non-food-related words presented on a background of a virtual navigational route while undergoing fMRI recordings. After acute ghrelin administration, we observed decreased post-encoding resting state fMRI connectivity between the caudate nucleus and the insula, amygdala, and orbitofrontal cortex. In addition, brain activity related to subsequent memory performance was modulated by ghrelin. On the next day, however, no differences were found in free word recall or cued location-word association recall between conditions; and ghrelin's effects on brain activity or functional connectivity were unrelated to memory performance. Further, ghrelin had no effect on a cognitive test battery comprising tests for working memory, fluid reasoning, creativity, mental speed, and attention. In conclusion, in contrast to studies with animal models, we did not find any evidence for the potential of ghrelin acting as a short-term cognitive enhancer in humans.

Contains fulltext : 167835.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Ghrelin regulates energy homeostasis in various species and enhances memory in rodent models. In humans, the role of ghrelin in cognitive processes has yet to be characterized. Here we show in a double-blind randomized crossover design that acute administration of ghrelin alters encoding-related brain activity, however does not enhance memory formation in humans. Twenty-one healthy young male participants had to memorize food- and non-food-related words presented on a background of a virtual navigational route while undergoing fMRI recordings. After acute ghrelin administration, we observed decreased post-encoding resting state fMRI connectivity between the caudate nucleus and the insula, amygdala, and orbitofrontal cortex. In addition, brain activity related to subsequent memory performance was modulated by ghrelin. On the next day, however, no differences were found in free word recall or cued location-word association recall between conditions; and ghrelin's effects on brain activity or functional connectivity were unrelated to memory performance. Further, ghrelin had no effect on a cognitive test battery comprising tests for working memory, fluid reasoning, creativity, mental speed, and attention. In conclusion, in contrast to studies with animal models, we did not find any evidence for the potential of ghrelin acting as a short-term cognitive enhancer in humans.

Contains fulltext : 155275.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 155275.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 155275.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, The term "cognitive enhancement" usually characterizes interventions in humans that aim to improve mental functioning beyond what is necessary to sustain or restore good health. While the current bioethical debate mainly concentrates on pharmaceuticals, according to the given characterization, cognitive enhancement also by non-pharmacological means has to be regarded as enhancement proper. Here we summarize empirical data on approaches using nutrition, physical exercise, sleep, meditation, mnemonic strategies, computer training, and brain stimulation for enhancing cognitive capabilities. Several of these non-pharmacological enhancement strategies seem to be more efficacious compared to currently available pharmaceuticals usually coined as cognitive enhancers. While many ethical arguments of the cognitive enhancement debate apply to both pharmacological and non-pharmacological enhancers, some of them appear in new light when considered on the background of non-pharmacological enhancement. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Cognitive Enhancers'.

Item does not contain fulltext, The term "cognitive enhancement" usually characterizes interventions in humans that aim to improve mental functioning beyond what is necessary to sustain or restore good health. While the current bioethical debate mainly concentrates on pharmaceuticals, according to the given characterization, cognitive enhancement also by non-pharmacological means has to be regarded as enhancement proper. Here we summarize empirical data on approaches using nutrition, physical exercise, sleep, meditation, mnemonic strategies, computer training, and brain stimulation for enhancing cognitive capabilities. Several of these non-pharmacological enhancement strategies seem to be more efficacious compared to currently available pharmaceuticals usually coined as cognitive enhancers. While many ethical arguments of the cognitive enhancement debate apply to both pharmacological and non-pharmacological enhancers, some of them appear in new light when considered on the background of non-pharmacological enhancement. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Cognitive Enhancers'.

Item does not contain fulltext, The term "cognitive enhancement" usually characterizes interventions in humans that aim to improve mental functioning beyond what is necessary to sustain or restore good health. While the current bioethical debate mainly concentrates on pharmaceuticals, according to the given characterization, cognitive enhancement also by non-pharmacological means has to be regarded as enhancement proper. Here we summarize empirical data on approaches using nutrition, physical exercise, sleep, meditation, mnemonic strategies, computer training, and brain stimulation for enhancing cognitive capabilities. Several of these non-pharmacological enhancement strategies seem to be more efficacious compared to currently available pharmaceuticals usually coined as cognitive enhancers. While many ethical arguments of the cognitive enhancement debate apply to both pharmacological and non-pharmacological enhancers, some of them appear in new light when considered on the background of non-pharmacological enhancement. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Cognitive Enhancers'.