Psychedelics like psilocybin have shown rapid and long-lasting efficacy on depressive and anxiety symptoms. Other psychedelics with shorter half-lives, such as DMT and 5-MeO-DMT, have also shown promising preliminary outcomes in major depression, making them interesting candidates for clinical practice. Despite several promising clinical studies, the influence of the context on therapeutic responses or adverse effects remains poorly documented. To address this, we conducted preclinical studies evaluating the psychopharmacological profile of 5-MeO-DMT in contexts previously validated in mice as either pleasant (positive setting) or aversive (negative setting). Healthy C57BL/6J male mice received a single intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of 5-MeO-DMT at doses of 0.5, 5, and 10 mg/kg, with assessments at 2 hours, 24 hours, and one week post-administration. In a corticosterone (CORT) mouse model of depression, 5-MeO-DMT was administered in different settings, and behavioral tests mimicking core symptoms of depression and anxiety were conducted. In CORT-exposed mice, an acute dose of 0.5 mg/kg administered in a neutral setting produced antidepressant-like effects at 24 hours, as observed by reduced immobility time in the Tail Suspension Test (TST). In a positive setting, the drug also reduced latency to first immobility and total immobility time in the TST. However, these beneficial effects were negated in a negative setting, where 5-MeO-DMT failed to produce antidepressant-like effects and instead elicited an anxiogenic response in the Elevated Plus Maze (EPM).Our results indicate a strong influence of setting on the psychopharmacological profile of 5-MeO-DMT. Future experiments will examine cortical markers of pre- and post-synaptic density to correlate neuroplasticity changes with the behavioral effects of 5-MeO-DMT in different settings.

What do people do when they comprehend language in discourse? According to many psychologists, they build and maintain cognitive representations of utterances in four complementary mental models for discourse that interact with each other: the surface text, the text base, the situation model, and the context model. When people encounter metaphors in these utterances, they need to incorporate them into each of these mental representations for the discourse. Since influential metaphor theories define metaphor as a form of (figurative) analogy, involving cross-domain mapping of a smaller or greater extent, the general expectation has been that metaphor comprehension is also based on analogizing. This expectation, however, has been partly borne out by the data, but not completely. There is no one-to-one relationship between metaphor as (conceptual) structure (analogy) and metaphor as (psychological) process (analogizing). According to Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT), only some metaphors are handled by analogy. Instead, most metaphors are presumably handled by lexical disambiguation. This is a hypothesis that brings together most metaphor research in a provocatively new way: it means that most metaphors are not processed metaphorically, which produces a paradox of metaphor. In this talk I will sketch out how this paradox arises and how it can be resolved by a new version of DMT, which I have described in my forthcoming book Slowing metaphor down: Updating Deliberate Metaphor Theory (currently under review). In this theory, the distinction between, but also the relation between, analogy in metaphorical structure versus analogy in metaphorical process is of central importance.