Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41451530›Full record

ReviewJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2026

Learning as the unifying mechanism of psychedelic action.

Alice Caulfield, Allan H Young, Mitul Mehta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alice CaulfieldInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6033-7527
Allan H YoungInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Mitul MehtaInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychedelics are gaining attention as putative treatments for a range of psychiatric conditions, and evidence suggests that they produce sustained behavioural and clinical change. Enhanced learning is an emerging candidate mechanism mediating these sustained effects. This narrative review synthesises evidence across behavioural, neural and computational levels to examine the current evidence base for how psychedelics may alter learning mechanisms. We propose that viewing psychedelic mechanisms through the lens of learning unifies context-dependent outcomes, increased environmental sensitivity and neuroplastic change. We discuss how persistent changes in top-down and bottom-up information processing at a systems-level may account for both the therapeutic and adverse effects of psychedelics, and highlight a mechanistic convergence between such systems-level changes and the recently identified psychedelic-mediated reopening of critical learning periods. This systems-level framework may explain why psychedelic outcomes vary widely and hinge critically on the context: it is the learning environment, including psychological support and therapeutic insights, which shapes the lasting effect. If the post-psychedelic period is characterised by a vulnerable neuroplastic state in combination with increased environmental sensitivity, usually observed uniquely during childhood, this would offer a window of opportunity for revision of entrenched beliefs. Understanding these mechanisms has important translational relevance for the design and implementation of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy.

Indexed as

HallucinogensLearningAnimalsHumansNeuronal PlasticityHallucinogenscritical periodlearningpsychedelicssensitive period

Identifiers

PMID41451530
PMCPMC13310274

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.