Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

19 (2004) 153–163

Neuropsychological and emotional changes during

simulated microgravity: effects of triiodothyronine,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

alendronate, and testosterone
Wm. Drew Gouvier a,∗ , James B. Pinkston a , Jennifer C. Lovejoy b ,
Steven R. Smith b , George A. Bray b , Michael P. Santa Maria a ,
Jill Hayes Hammer a , Robin C. Hilsabeck a , Brandi Smiroldo a ,
Bret Bentz a , Jeffrey Browndyke a
a
Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
b
Pennington Biomedical Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA
Accepted 20 September 2002

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We present the results of a two-experiment study designed to evaluate the neu-
rocognitive and psychological effects of six-degree head-down bedrest and pharmacologic interven-
tions (3,5,3 -triiodothyronine; T3) implemented to enhance the muscle and bone atrophy associated
with simulated microgravity. Subsequently, the effects of countermeasures (alendronate and testos-
terone) administered to retard or reverse these T3 plus bedrest enhanced atrophic changes, were
evaluated. Each participant was tested weekly for 5 weeks during Bedrest or non-bedrest (Up) con-
ditions with the Neurobehavioral Evaluation System 2 (NES2), the Symptom Check List 90 Revised
(SCL-90-R), and the Coping Responses Inventory (CRI). Resultant data were subjected to repeated
measures, between groups analysis of variance testing for all 82 neurocognitive and psychological test
measures.
RESULTS: In Experiment 1, participants in the Placebo-Bedrest condition performed better on
several neurocognitive measures compared to participants in the T3-Up condition. However, participants
in the Placebo-Bedrest condition also reported more confusion. In Experiment 2 (countermeasure trials),
superior coordination was observed for participants in the Testosterone-T3 condition over those in the
Alendronate-T3 condition, but just the opposite for reaction time. Also, testosterone and to a lesser
degree, alendronate, were associated with less self-reported emotional distress than T3 plus bedrest
alone.

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-225-578-1494; fax: +1-225-578-4661.
E-mail address: wgouvie@lsu.edu (Wm.D. Gouvier).

0887-6177/$ – see front matter © 2003 National Academy of Neuropsychology.

doi:10.1016/j.acn.2002.09.001
154 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163

CONCLUSION: Triiodothyronine, alendronate, and testosterone each influence participant response

to simulated microgravity. Between group differences for significant findings were substantial and aver-
aged 1.62 standard deviations. Although the observed neurocognitive effects likely pose no immediate
danger for research participants, the significantly greater level of self-reported psychological symptoms
by T3-Placebo and Placebo-Bedrest treated participants is of clinical importance.
© 2003 National Academy of Neuropsychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Microgravity; Thyroid hormone; Alendronate; Testosterone

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

The microgravity of space travel is stressful to humans and produces physical changes
including bone mineral loss, muscle atrophy, neuromuscular weakness, decline in work ca-
pacity, and fatigue (Fujii & Patten, 1992). An improved understanding of the mechanisms
by which microgravity adversely affects both the physical and resultant/concomitant psy-
chological and neurocognitive effects in humans, and more effective treatments to slow or
halt these changes, will allow healthier, happier, and longer stays in space (Fujii & Pat-
ten). However, limited opportunities to study orbital space flight have kept our understanding
of the effects of microgravity in its infancy (Fujii & Patten). Over the past, approximately
15 years, a ground-based model for simulating the effects of microgravity has been devel-
oped. Using this model, scientifically controlled experiments can be conducted to parse out
the effects of simulated microgravity and evaluate preventative measures applied against
those effects. It is hoped that countermeasures that oppose the effects of simulated mi-
crogravity will also be effective against the deleterious effects of the microgravity of
space.
The effects of microgravity on humans are often studied by having participants confined
to bedrest with a six-degree head-down tilt (antiorthostatic hypokinesia; Lathers, Charles,
& Bungo, 1989). Recently, we have proposed a model including hormonal modifications to
accelerate the bone mineral loss and muscle atrophy seen in microgravity (Lovejoy, Smith,
Zachwieja, Bray, & Windhauser, 1999). It is important to understand both the neurocogni-
tive and emotional effects of simulated microgravity, as well as implemented pharmacologic
changes, in order to determine how such interventions may affect the well being of further
research participants and future astronauts. To the extent that the catabolic effects of simulated
microgravity are systemic, we might expect to observe neuropsychological effects similar to
those observed in other cases of minimal brain dysfunction (MBD), such as those caused by
malnutrition, exposure to toxic agents, or the residual effects of drug abuse. On the other
hand, anabolic countermeasures would be expected to enhance some components of perfor-
mance, as reflected by a lesser degree of MBD signs among participants who receive these
countermeasures.
This study was conducted with the approval of the Louisiana State University Institutional
Review Board in an effort to ascertain the neurocognitive and emotional effects of efforts
to both enhance (Experiment 1) and retard or reverse (Experiment 2) the physically wasting
effects of simulated microgravity. This two-experiment study represents a recombination of
cells reported in previous physiological studies (Lovejoy, Smith, Bray, DeLany, & Rood,
1997a; Lovejoy et al., 1999) as a three-experiment study.
 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163 155

1. Experiment 1

All participants in both experiments gave informed consent to participate in this study
that was a part of a larger study on the physiological effects of prolonged bedrest/simulated
microgravity. After entering the Pennington Biomedical Research Center (PBRC) inpatient
unit, participants were placed on a rigidly controlled and balanced diet excluding alcohol,
caffeine, and cigarettes. Data were grouped into two experiments. Experiment 1 was conducted
first, Experiment 2 followed thereafter. Methodological details of these studies have been
published previously (Lovejoy et al., 1997a; Lovejoy, Smith, Bray, Veldhuis, & Rood, 1997b;

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

Lovejoy et al., 1999).

1.1. Method

1.1.1. Participants
Participants were admitted to the PBRC on an inpatient basis. The first week was utilized
to acclimate them to the testing procedure and included three learning trials for each neu-
ropsychological measure. Following this initial period, those in the Bedrest condition were
placed with their head six degrees below their feet (antiorthostatic hypokinesia), and were
not allowed to arise again for 28 days, while those in the Up condition were not restricted
from normal daily activities except for limiting their participation in activities involving any
strenuous exertion. Participants in the Bedrest condition remained at the PBRC for a total of
40 days, whereas participants in the Up condition stayed for 63 days. Testing continued during
this period on a weekly basis, thus completing the five target test administrations. The first
data point used in analysis was the last learning trial administered before any pharmacological
interventions were introduced, and further data points were obtained from the four subsequent
weekly test administrations. Pharmacological interventions were 3,5,3 -triiodothyronine (T3;
n = 34) or a placebo (n = 6). T3 was given at a dose of 50–75 ␮g per day (10–15 ␮g per day
five times a day). Following the 4 weeks of Bedrest or Up condition, testing in each condition
was terminated. Those participants in the Bedrest condition were given several days on the
unit for muscular reconditioning, as well as follow-up appointments to check for any occult
health problems they may have incurred.

1.1.2. Groups
Experiment 1 consisted of 23 participants; six in the T3-Up condition, 11 in the T3-Bedrest
condition, and six in the Placebo-Bedrest condition. Demographics for the participants in
Experiment 1 can be seen in Table 1.

1.1.3. Testing
Testing was always done in the morning following breakfast and typically during the week-
end. Prior to testing, all participants were briefly interviewed to assure that they were not suf-
fering from interfering physical symptoms such as headache or nausea. Testing included the
Neurobehavioral Evaluation System 2 (NES2; Letz, 1993), a computer administered test bat-
tery consisting of measures designed to test general neuropsychological performance on func-
tions such as dexterity, concentration, and motor speed; the Symptom Check List 90 Revised
156 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163

Table 1
Participant demographics for Experiment 1
Participant groupings
T3-Up T3-BR Placebo-BR Total
n/N 6 11 6 23
Males 6 8 4 18
Females 0 3 2 5
Right-handed 5 11 6 22
Left-handed 1 0 0 1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

M age (S.D.) 26.67 (7.15) 36.45 (6.42) 37.17 (6.97) 34.10 (7.86)
M education (S.D.) 15.50 (2.51) 15.09 (2.91) 14.33 (3.01) 15.00 (2.75)
Note. T3, 3,5,3 -triiodothyronine; Up, those not in bedrest; BR, bedrest.

(SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1992), and the Coping Responses Inventory (CRI; Moos, 1993), both
paper and pencil measures designed to assess endorsement of psychological symptoms. Each
testing session took approximately 1.5 h to complete.
Participants experiencing competing symptoms, such as headache, were not tested if they
felt that their performance would be adversely affected or that testing would cause them undue
discomfort. Instead, if they did not feel better within an hour, they were tested the next morning.
This contingency was rare, but allowed flexibility to account for participants’ needs without
sacrificing any data acquisition.
The weekly neuropsychological and emotional test battery was designed to tap the intel-
lectual domains of attention, concentration, reasoning, and cognitive flexibility; the motor
domains of fine motor speed, coordination, pursuit skills, and gross motor strength; the mem-
ory domains of short term memory and learning, and long term recall for both verbal and
non-verbal information; the visual-spatial domains of constructional ability and mental rota-
tions; and the emotional domains of anxiety, depression, delirium, psychosis, anger, tension,
fatigue, irritability, and somatic complaints.

1.2. Analysis

For Experiment 1, the factors of interest and respective analyses were as follows: (1) T3-Up
versus Placebo-Bedrest, (2) T3-Up combined with Placebo-Bedrest versus T3-Bedrest, (3)
T3-Up versus T3-Bedrest, and (4) Placebo-Bedrest versus T3-Bedrest.
Our rationale behind these comparisons was to investigate any neuropsychological and/or
emotional differences between treatments imposed on participants in studies designed to sim-
ulate the atrophic wasting seen in microgravity. As such, we wanted to partial out the effects
of both bedrest and T3 and see: (1) if T3 produced significantly different neuropsychological
or emotional changes than bedrest alone, (2) if no difference was found between those tak-
ing T3 and those confined to bedrest, to see if those participants on T3-alone and those on
bedrest-alone combined differed significantly in neuropsychological or emotional effect form
those participants administered T3 and bedrest together, (3) if T3-alone and bedrest-alone dif-
fered, to see if those participants taking T3 differed neuropsychologically or emotionally from
 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163 157

those taking T3 and confined to bedrest, and (4) if placebo participants confined to bedrest
differed neuropsychologically or emotionally from those confined to bedrest and on T3.
The resultant data from the above groupings were subjected to repeated measures between
groups analysis of variance testing for all 82 neurocognitive and psychological test measures.
Analysis progressed in a step-wise fashion, Analysis 1 being conducted first. If Analysis 1
revealed a significant difference between the factors, Analyses 3 and 4 were then conducted
to further define this difference. If Analysis 1 failed to reveal a significant difference, then
Analysis 2 was conducted.
Finally, repeated measures analysis of variance testing was used to ascertain if there were

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

any significant differences within a given group across time. As such, the scores for each
of the 82 neurocognitive measures were compared for significant differences across the five
administration times within each Experiment.
In an effort to ascertain the clinical importance of our findings, strength of association and
effect size were computed for each significant between groups result. Strength of association
was measured using eta squared (η2 ), a coefficient which indicates the amount of total variation
in the dependent variable that can be accounted for by the independent variable (Kiess, 1989).
Within this study, eta squared refers to the degree to which a significant result on a measure
of cognitive or emotional functioning can be attributed to treatment classification. This coef-
ficient is very similar to the coefficient of determination, or R2 with which most are familiar
(Kiess). Effect size estimates (d) were then computed, measuring the differences among the
paired treatment means beyond that expected from sampling error alone, and expressed in
standardized units similar to Z-scores (Kiess). In accordance with the discovery nature of this
study, all analyses were conducted at alpha ≤ .05.

1.3. Results

Experiment 1 compared the neuropsychological and emotional effects associated with ef-
forts to replicate the natural wasting that occurs in microgravity environments, by simulating
it using head-down bedrest, and evaluated whether this wasting could be accelerated by the
addition of T3. Of the 82 measures analyzed, significant results obtained are as follows: When
comparing the Placebo-Bedrest condition with the T3-Up condition, the Placebo-Bedrest con-
dition showed superior scores on finger tapping and hand–eye coordination, while endorsing
more confusion and greater use of positive appraisal as a coping style. The T3-Up condition
showed better scores on digit span backwards and associate recall, but produced more errors
on switching attention. When comparing the T3-Up condition with the T3-Bedrest condition
in secondary analysis, participants in the T3-Bedrest condition showed higher scores on finger
tapping (both dominant and non-dominant hands) as well as more confusion and a higher
positive symptom distress index. These findings all produced large effect sizes, a difference in
means representing the value of one standard deviation or greater (Cohen, 1965), ranging from
d = 1.13 to 2.47 with a mean of d = 1.68. Strength of association ranged from η2 = .242 to
.604 with a mean η2 of .405 (see Table 2).
Repeated measures analysis of variance testing for differences across the five administra-
tion times produced 48 significant effects in Experiment 1. On the whole, 37.5% (18) of these
effects were seen as being directly caused by one or more “outlier” performances and are not
158 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163

Table 2
Experiment 1 significant results
Measure Mean comparisons Effect size (d) Eta squared (η2 ) P-value
Finger tapping, dominant hand PB > T3U 1.84 .458 .0156
T3B > T3U 1.37 .318 .0183
Finger tapping, non-dominant hand PB > T3U 2.47 .604 .0029
T3B > T3U 1.65 .405 .0060
Hand–eye coordination, Trial 1 PB > T3U 1.89 .473 .0134
PB > T3B 1.96 .491 .0017

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

Hand–eye coordination, Trial 2 PB > T3U 1.46 .347 .0439
PB > T3B 1.18 .257 .0377
Hand–eye coordination, Trial 3 PB > T3U 1.65 .405 .0262
Hand–eye coordination, Trial 5 PB > T3U 1.68 .415 .0237
PB > T3B 1.32 .303 .0221
Digit span, backward T3U > PB 1.53 .368 .0365
Associate recall T3U > PB 1.50 .360 .0390
Switching attention, errors T3U > PB 2.09 .523 .0078
T3U > T3B 1.97 .492 .0017
Confusion PB > T3U 2.26 .560 .0051
T3B > T3U 1.13 .242 .0450
Positive reappraisal PB > T3U 1.59 .387 .0308
Positive Symptoms Distress Index T3B > T3U plus PB 1.31 .300 .0068
Note. PB, Placebo-Bedrest condition; T3U, T3-Up condition, T3B, T3-Bedrest condition.

readily interpretable as showing either an upward or downward trend, 41.7% (20) indicated
general improvement in functioning or self-report, and 20.8% (10) represented worsening in
functioning or self-report. Rates of neurocognitive practice effects and self-reported psycho-
logical change are presented in Table 3.

1.4. Discussion

Experiment 1 revealed that participants in the Placebo-Bedrest condition performed better on

some neuropsychological measures than the participants receiving T3 who were not confined

Table 3
Experiment 1 significant differences across administrations
Type of measure Change across administrations Percent of total

Neurocognitive Improvement 40.7

Worsening 14.8
Random 44.5
Psychological Improvement 42.8
Worsening 28.6
Random 28.6
Total Improvement 41.7
Worsening 20.8
Random 37.5
 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163 159

to bedrest. This finding probably indicates a mild impairment in neurocognitive functioning

resulting from T3 administration. However, participants in the Bedrest conditions (both those
on T3 and placebo) also reported more confusion, a finding that most likely reflects on the
disruption or disorientation resulting from prolonged maintenance of an alien posture.

2. Experiment 2

Experiment 2 was conducted to investigate the effects of countermeasures applied to thwart

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

or reverse the muscle and bone atrophy induced in Experiment 1. Such countermeasures are
of prime interest for space research and represent the forefront of such studies (Lathers et al.,
1989; Lovejoy et al., 1997a, 1997b, 1999).

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants
All participants in Experiment 2 were confined to bedrest and underwent a similar inpatient
stay at the PBRC as those participants in Experiment 1 also confined to bedrest. Data acquisition
also progressed along the 5-week time period as detailed in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2,
all participants were given T3 at a dose of 50–75 ␮g per day (10–15 ␮g per day five times a
day). Additionally, seven participants received testosterone (given as a loading dose of 75 ␮g
for three days and then 200 ␮g per week for the three remaining weeks of the study), and six
participants received alendronate (20 ␮g per day; two doses of 10 ␮g each with water). Finally,
11 participants received T3 alone with the countermeasure placebo. Following the 4 weeks of
bedrest, as was done in Experiment 1, testing in each condition was terminated. Participants
were then given several days on the unit for muscular reconditioning as well as follow-up
appointments to check for any occult health problems they may have incurred.

2.2. Groups

Experiment 2 consisted of 24 participants; seven in the Testosterone (T) countermeasure plus

T3-Bedrest condition, six in the Alendronate (AL) countermeasure plus T3-Bedrest condition,
and 11 in the T3-Bedrest countermeasure placebo condition gleaned from Experiment 1.
Demographics for Experiment 2 can be seen in Table 4.

2.2.1. Testing
Testing for Experiment 2 proceeded exactly as in Experiment 1. The NES2, SCL-90-R,
and CRI were again used, and the same efforts and precautions were taken to assure each
participant’s best effort while testing.

2.3. Analysis

For Experiment 2, the factors of interest and respective analyses were as follows (all par-
ticipants were in Bedrest): (1) AL-T3 versus Testosterone-T3, (2) AL-T3 combined with
Testosterone-T3 versus T3, (3) AL-T3 versus T3, and (4) Testosterone-T3 versus T3.
160 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163

Table 4
Participant demographics for Experiment 2
Participant groupings
T3-Testosterone T3-Alendronate T3-Placebo Total
n/N 7 6 11 24
Males 7 6 8 21
Females 0 0 3 3
Right-handed 6 6 11 23
Left-handed 1 0 0 1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

M age (S.D.) 35.57 (6.11) 38.83 (6.43) 36.45 (6.42) 36.80 (6.19)
M education (S.D.) 14.00 (1.15) 14.50 (3.21) 15.09 (2.91) 14.63 (2.55)
Note. T3, 3,5,3 -triiodothyronine. All participants were in bedrest.

Our rationale behind these comparisons was to investigate any neuropsychological and/or
emotional differences between different countermeasures imposed on participants confined
to bed and in studies designed to retard the atrophic wasting seen in microgravity. As such,
we wanted to partial out the effects of both testosterone and alendronate in the context of T3
and therefore see: (1) if AL administered with T3 produced significantly different neuropsy-
chological or emotional changes than Testosterone administered with T3, (2) if no difference
was found between those taking T3 and AL and those taking T3 and testosterone, to see if
those participants on T3 and AL and those on T3 and testosterone combined differed sig-
nificantly in neuropsychological or emotional effect form those participants administered T3
and placebo, (3) if those on T3 and AL and those on T3 and testosterone differed, to see if
those participants taking T3 and AL differed neuropsychologically or emotionally from those
taking T3 and placebo, and (4) to see if those participants taking T3 and testosterone differed
neuropsychologically or emotionally from those taking T3 and placebo.
The resultant data from the above groupings was subjected to repeated measures, between
groups analysis of variance testing for all 82 neurocognitive and psychological test measures
as was done in Experiment 1. Analysis progressed in a step-wise fashion, Analysis 1 being
conducted first. If Analysis 1 revealed a significant difference between the factors, Analyses
3 and 4 were then conducted to further define this difference. If Analysis 1 failed to reveal a
significant difference, then Analysis 2 was conducted.
Finally, repeated measures analysis of variance testing was used to ascertain if there were
any significant differences within a given group across time. As such, the scores for each
of the 82 neurocognitive measures were compared for significant differences across the five
administration times within each Experiment.
Strength of association (η2 ) and effect size (d) were determined for Experiment 2. Finally, in
accordance with the discovery nature of this study, all analyses were conducted at alpha ≤ .05.

2.4. Results

Experiment 2 compared the neurocognitive and emotional effects associated with adminis-
tering one of two different countermeasures (alendronate or testosterone) to prevent the wasting
 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163 161

Table 5
Experiment 2 significant results
Measure Mean comparisons Effect size (d) Eta squared (η2 ) P-value
Hand–eye coordination T-T3 > AL-T3 1.42 .336 .0377
Color word, response time T-T3 > AL-T3 1.43 .338 .0373
Simple reaction time T-T3 > AL-T3 1.35 .314 .0463
Memory symptoms AL-T3 > T-T3 1.45 .343 .0355
Confusion symptoms AL-T3 > T-T3 1.83 .455 .0115
Confusion endorsement AL-T3 > T-T3 1.37 .320 .0438

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

Depression AL-T3 > T-T3 1.54 .373 .0266
T3 > T-T3 1.61 .394 .0053
Fatigue AL-T3 > T-T3 1.64 .403 .0198
Somatization AL-T3 > T-T3 1.33 .306 .0497
T3 > T-T3 1.42 .336 .0117
OC traits AL-T3 > T-T3 2.03 .507 .0063
T3 > T-T3 1.11 .235 .0413
Positive Symptoms Distress Index T3 > AL-T3 plus T-T3 1.60 .390 .0011
Positive symptom total AL-T3 > T-T3 1.72 .424 .0158
T3 > T-T3 1.89 .473 .0016
T-T3, Testosterone plus T3-Bedrest condition; AL-T3, Alendronate plus T3-Bedrest condition.

that was accelerated in the T3 plus Bedrest condition. Experiment 2 showed two patterns of
results. First, the AL-T3 condition scored better than the Testosterone-T3 (T-T3) condition
on a task of hand–eye coordination, but worse on two measures of response time (color word
response time and simple reaction time).
The second pattern involved the report of psychological symptoms on self-report measures.
Findings indicated that both countermeasures (testosterone and alendronate) were effective
at promoting improved psychological adjustment over the T3 and placebo conditions during
the Bedrest condition. The AL-T3 condition scored somewhat higher than T-T3 on a mea-
sures of memory symptoms, two measures of confusion, and measures of depression, fatigue,
somatization, obsessive compulsive traits, and positive symptom total. Of these measures,
visual inspection revealed that the T3 and placebo conditions had the greatest self-report of
negative psychological symptoms, showing more endorsement than either the AL-T3 or T-T3
conditions on most of the above measures of psychological symptoms. These findings also
produced large effect sizes (Cohen, 1965) ranging from d = 1.11 to 2.03 with a mean of
d = 1.55. Strength of association ranged from η2 = .235 to .507 with a mean η2 of .372 (see
Table 5).
Repeated measures analysis of variance testing for differences across the five administration
times in Experiment 2 produced 55 significant effects. On the whole, 50.9% (18) of these effects
were seen as being directly caused by one or more “outlier” performances and are not readily
interpretable as showing either an upward or downward trend, 34.5% (19) showed general
improvement in functioning or self-report, and 14.6% (8) represented worsening in functioning
or self-report. Rates of neurocognitive practice effects and self-reported psychological change
are presented in Table 6.
162 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163

Table 6
Experiment 2 significant differences across administrations
Type of measure Change across administrations Percent of total
Neurocognitive Improvement 25.0
Worsening 4.2
Random 70.8
Psychological Improvement 41.9
Worsening 22.6
Random 35.5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

Total Improvement 34.5
Worsening 14.6
Random 50.9

2.5. Discussion

Experiment 2 comparisons revealed an advantage in coordination for the Testosterone-T3

treated group over the Alendronate-T3 group, but just the opposite for reaction time, indicating
a superiority in motor accuracy but with a decrement in speed. Also, T3 and testosterone, and to
a lesser degree, T3 and alendronate, were associated with less self-reported emotional distress
than T3 and placebo, suggesting that the countermeasures mitigated some of the psychological
discomfort found among participants in the T3 and placebo treatment during Bedrest.

3. General discussion

The various magnitudes of all significant differences seen in this study represent rather large
effects (Cohen, 1965), but were observed on relatively few measures. Both Experiments 1 and
2 looked at each of the 82 measures, contrasting group performances with up to three analyses
on each, thus yielding a potential total of 492 analyses (the actual number was 270). As an
alternative to Bonferroni correction, and in order to assure that the present findings did not
capitalize on chance, we investigated the total number of significant group differences. Setting
alpha at ≤.05, 5% of the 270 analyses or 13.5 of them, would be expected to reach significance
by chance alone. Analysis found 35 significant group differences in Experiments 1 and 2
combined. Also, a number of the variables were found to be significant in both Experiments
1 and 2, suggesting that these may represent genuine effects (e.g., hand–eye coordination,
confusion, Positive Symptoms Distress Index).
For the variables that reached the P ≤ .05 level of significance, mean differences be-
tween paired treatment group means averaged 1.62 standard deviations for the entire ex-
periment and never dropped below one standard deviation; on several instances they even
approached or exceeded two standard deviations. The size of these differences warrants at-
tention by persons engaged in studies of simulated microgravity/antiorthostatic hypokinesia,
and/or studies where substances such as alendronate, testosterone, or T3 are applied. Although
the observed neurocognitive effects likely pose no immediate danger for research participants,
 Wm.D. Gouvier et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19 (2004) 153–163 163

the significantly greater self-report of psychological symptoms by some treatment groups

(T3-alone and Bedrest-only conditions) may be of clinical importance as they reflect on the
somewhat aversive nature of the prolonged head-down bedrest procedure.
Experiment 2 of this study was conducted in an effort to mitigate the wasting typically seen
in microgravity/antiorthostatic hypokinesia environments and enhanced with countermeasures
such as T3. The use of alendronate and testosterone requires further research to partial out the
degree of both the positive effects, such as lower self-report of emotional distress and improved
coordination, and the negative effects, such as increased reaction time, which these drugs may
induce in future astronauts and those receiving them as medication. Overall, however, the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/19/2/153/2248 by guest on 20 March 2020

addition of countermeasures to the Bedrest and T3 protocol appears to partially mitigate some
of the accumulated aversiveness that results from the prolonged bedrest experience, along with
beneficially impacting the physical atrophic changes of antiorthostatic hypokinesia (Zachwieja
et al., 1999).

References

Cohen, J. (1965). Some statistical issues in psychological research. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of clinical
psychology (pp. 95–121). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Derogatis, L. R. (1992). SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring & procedures manual II. Baltimore, MD: Clinical
Psychometric Research.
Fujii, M. D., & Patten, B. M. (1992). Neurology of microgravity and space travel. Neurologic Clinics, 10, 999–1013.
Kiess, H. O. (1989). Statistical concepts for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lathers, C. M., Charles, J. B., & Bungo, M. W. (1989). Pharmacology in space. Part 1: Influence of adaptive
changes on pharmacokinetics. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 10, 193–200.
Letz, R. (1993). Neurobehavioral evaluation system 2. Winchester, MA: Neurobehavioral Systems, Inc.
Lovejoy, J. C., Smith, S. R., Bray, G. A., DeLany, J. P., Rood, J. C., Gouvier, W. D., et al. (1997a). A paradigm
of experimentally induced mild hyperthyroidism: Effects on nitrogen balance, body composition, and energy
expenditure in healthy young men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 82, 765–770.
Lovejoy, J. C., Smith, S. R., Bray, G. A., Veldhuis, J. D., Rood, J. C., & Tulley, R. (1997b). Effects of
experimentally induced mild hyperthyroidism on growth hormone and insulin secretion and sex steroid levels
in healthy young men. Metabolism, 46, 1424–1428.
Lovejoy, J. C., Smith, S. R., Zachwieja, J. J., Bray, G. A., Windhauser, M. M., Wickersham, P. J., et al. (1999).
Low-dose T(3) improves the bed rest model of simulated weightlessness in men and women. American Journal
of Physiology, 277, 370–379.
Moos, R. H. (1993). Coping Responses Inventory—Adult Form. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources,
Inc.
Zachwieja, J. J., Smith, S. R., Lovejoy, J. C., Rood, J. C., Windhauser, M. M., & Bray, G. A. (1999). Testosterone
administration preserves protein balance but not muscle strength during 28 days of bedrest. Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology and Metabolism, 84, 207–212.