Source author record

Lisa Weckesser

Lisa Weckesser appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Testing three models of cognitive stress effects: A psychopharmacological randomized controlled trial of acute stress and stress hormones across visual perception, response inhibition and cognitive flexibility

Acute stress alters cognitive performance, yet competing models make divergent predictions regarding the mechanisms, scope, and temporal dynamics of these effects. This large-scale randomized controlled trial tested predications from three influential stress-effect models using a broad cognitive task battery embedded within a psychopharmacological stress paradigm. Across 606 testing sessions, 303 healthy male participants completed both the Maastricht Acute Stress Test (MAST) and its non-stress control condition. To independently manipulate acute stress and stress hormone availability, participants were additionally randomized to receive atomoxetine (40 mg; to prolong norepinephrine availability), hydrocortisone (10 mg; to increase cortisol availability), or placebo. Cognitive performance was assessed over 80-minutes (post-stress) using tasks targeting visual perception (rapid serial visual presentation), response inhibition (stop-signal), and cognitive flexibility (dual and switch tasks). MAST exposure selectively impaired response inhibition, reflected in shorter stop-signal delays, lower probabilities of successful stopping and prolonged stop-signal reaction times, particularly during later testing phases (40-80 minutes post-stress). MAST exposure did not affect visual perception or task-switching performance but buffered time-related declines in processing efficiency at the expense of task prioritization in the dual task. Pharmacological manipulation of norepinephrine or cortisol availability was effective but did not moderate cognitive stress effects. Overall, this pattern of task-specific impairment alongside stabilized processing efficiency cannot be fully explained by any tested model, highlighting the need to refine existing models and adopt more integrative approaches to advance our mechanistic understanding of cognitive stress-effects in laboratory and real-world contexts.

preprint2018arXiv

How to disentangle psychobiological stress reactivity and recovery: A comparison of model-based and non-compartmental analyses of cortisol concentrations

This article seeks to address the prevailing issue of how to measure specific process components of psychobiological stress responses. Particularly the change of cortisol secretion due to stress exposure has been discussed as an endophenotype of many psychosomatic health outcomes. To assess its process components, a large variety of non-compartmental parameters (i.e., composite measures of substance concentrations at different points in time) like the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) are utilized. However, a systematic evaluation and validation of these parameters based on a physiologically plausible model of cortisol secretion has not been performed so far. Thus, a population pharmacokinetic (mixed-effects SDE) model was developed and fitted to densely sampled salivary cortisol data of 10 males from Montreal, Canada, and sparsely sampled data of 200 mixed-sex participants from Dresden, Germany, who completed the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST). Besides the two major process components representing (1) stress-related cortisol secretion (reactivity) and (2) cortisol elimination (recovery), the model incorporates two additional, often disregarded components: (3) the secretory delay after stress onset, and (4) deviations from the projected steady-state concentration. The fitted model (R2 = 99%) was thereafter used to investigate the correlation structure of the four individually varying, and readily interpretable model parameters and eleven popular non-compartmental parameters. Based on these analyses, we recommend to use the minimum-maximum cortisol difference and the minimum concentration as proxy measures of reactivity and recovery, respectively. Finally, statistical power analyses of the reactivity-related sex effect illustrate the consequences of using impure non-compartmental measures of the different process components that underlie the cortisol stress response.