Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical human research using low doses of certain central nervous system stimulants found enhanced cognition in healthy people.[21][22][23] In particular, the classes of stimulants that demonstrate cognition-enhancing effects in humans act as direct agonists or indirect agonists of dopamine receptor D1, adrenoceptor A2, or both types of receptor in the prefrontal cortex.[21][22][24][25] Relatively high doses of stimulants cause cognitive deficits.[24][25]
The information learned in the tasks reviewed so far was explicit, declarative, and consistent within each experiment. In contrast, probabilistic and procedural learning tasks require the subject to gradually extract a regularity in the associations among stimuli from multiple presentations in which the correct associations are only presented some of the time, with incorrect associations also presented. Findings are mixed in these tasks. Breitenstein and colleagues (2004, 2006) showed subjects drawings of common objects accompanied by nonsense word sounds in training sessions that extended over multiple days. They found faster learning of the to-be-learned, higher probability pairings between sessions (consistent with enhanced retention over longer delays). Breitenstein et al. (2004) found that this enhancement remained a year later. Schlösser et al. (2009) tested subjects’ probabilistic learning ability in the context of a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, comparing performance and brain activation with MPH and placebo. MPH did not affect learning performance as measured by accuracy. Although subjects were overall faster in responding on MPH, this difference was independent of the difficulty of the learning task, and the authors accordingly attributed it to response processes rather than learning.
Overall, the studies listed in Table 1 vary in ways that make it difficult to draw precise quantitative conclusions from them, including their definitions of nonmedical use, methods of sampling, and demographic characteristics of the samples. For example, some studies defined nonmedical use in a way that excluded anyone for whom a drug was prescribed, regardless of how and why they used it (Carroll et al., 2006; DeSantis et al., 2008, 2009; Kaloyanides et al., 2007; Low & Gendaszek, 2002; McCabe & Boyd, 2005; McCabe et al., 2004; Rabiner et al., 2009; Shillington et al., 2006; Teter et al., 2003, 2006; Weyandt et al., 2009), whereas others focused on the intent of the user and counted any use for nonmedical purposes as nonmedical use, even if the user had a prescription (Arria et al., 2008; Babcock & Byrne, 2000; Boyd et al., 2006; Hall et al., 2005; Herman-Stahl et al., 2007; Poulin, 2001, 2007; White et al., 2006), and one did not specify its definition (Barrett, Darredeau, Bordy, & Pihl, 2005). Some studies sampled multiple institutions (DuPont et al., 2008; McCabe & Boyd, 2005; Poulin, 2001, 2007), some sampled only one (Babcock & Byrne, 2000; Barrett et al., 2005; Boyd et al., 2006; Carroll et al., 2006; Hall et al., 2005; Kaloyanides et al., 2007; McCabe & Boyd, 2005; McCabe et al., 2004; Shillington et al., 2006; Teter et al., 2003, 2006; White et al., 2006), and some drew their subjects primarily from classes in a single department at a single institution (DeSantis et al., 2008, 2009; Low & Gendaszek, 2002). With few exceptions, the samples were all drawn from restricted geographical areas. Some had relatively high rates of response (e.g., 93.8%; Low & Gendaszek 2002) and some had low rates (e.g., 10%; Judson & Langdon, 2009), the latter raising questions about sample representativeness for even the specific population of students from a given region or institution.
White, Becker-Blease, & Grace-Bishop (2006) 2002 Large university undergraduates and graduates (N = 1,025) 16.2% (lifetime) 68.9%: improve attention; 65.2:% partying; 54.3%: improve study habits; 20%: improve grades; 9.1%: reduce hyperactivity 15.5%: 2–3 times per week; 33.9%: 2–3 times per month; 50.6%: 2–3 times per year 58%: easy or somewhat easy to obtain; write-in comments indicated many obtaining stimulants from friends with prescriptions

During the 1920s, Amphetamine was being researched as an asthma medication when its cognitive benefits were accidentally discovered. In many years that followed, this enhancer was exploited in a number of medical and nonmedical applications, for instance, to enhance alertness in military personnel, treat depression, improve athletic performance, etc.
Modafinil is not addictive, but there may be chances of drug abuse and memory impairment. This can manifest in people who consume it to stay up for way too long; as a result, this would probably make them ill. Long-term use of Modafinil may reduce plasticity and may harm the memory of some individuals. Hence, it is sold only on prescription by a qualified physician.
Instead of buying expensive supplements, Lebowitz recommends eating heart-healthy foods, like those found in the MIND diet. Created by researchers at Rush University, MIND combines the Mediterranean and DASH eating plans, which have been shown to reduce the risk of heart problems. Fish, nuts, berries, green leafy vegetables and whole grains are MIND diet staples. Lebowitz says these foods likely improve your cognitive health by keeping your heart healthy.
The goal of this article has been to synthesize what is known about the use of prescription stimulants for cognitive enhancement and what is known about the cognitive effects of these drugs. We have eschewed discussion of ethical issues in favor of simply trying to get the facts straight. Although ethical issues cannot be decided on the basis of facts alone, neither can they be decided without relevant facts. Personal and societal values will dictate whether success through sheer effort is as good as success with pharmacologic help, whether the freedom to alter one’s own brain chemistry is more important than the right to compete on a level playing field at school and work, and how much risk of dependence is too much risk. Yet these positions cannot be translated into ethical decisions in the real world without considerable empirical knowledge. Do the drugs actually improve cognition? Under what circumstances and for whom? Who will be using them and for what purposes? What are the mental and physical health risks for frequent cognitive-enhancement users? For occasional users?
Burke says he definitely got the glow. “The first time I took it, I was working on a business plan. I had to juggle multiple contingencies in my head, and for some reason a tree with branches jumped into my head. I was able to place each contingency on a branch, retract and go back to the trunk, and in this visual way I was able to juggle more information.”
These are the most popular nootropics available at the moment. Most of them are the tried-and-tested and the benefits you derive from them are notable (e.g. Guarana). Others are still being researched and there haven’t been many human studies on these components (e.g. Piracetam). As always, it’s about what works for you and everyone has a unique way of responding to different nootropics.
It is a known fact that cognitive decline is often linked to aging. It may not be as visible as skin aging, but the brain does in fact age. Often, cognitive decline is not noticeable because it could be as mild as forgetting names of people. However, research has shown that even in healthy adults, cognitive decline can start as early as in the late twenties or early thirties.
Amphetamine – systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that low-dose amphetamine improved cognitive functions (e.g., inhibitory control, episodic memory, working memory, and aspects of attention) in healthy people and in individuals with ADHD.[21][22][23][25] A 2014 systematic review noted that low doses of amphetamine also improved memory consolidation, in turn leading to improved recall of information in non-ADHD youth.[23] It also improves task saliency (motivation to perform a task) and performance on tedious tasks that required a high degree of effort.[22][24][25]