4.2 Article

The Influence of Recency of Use on fMRI Response During Spatial Working Memory in Adolescent Marijuana Users

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 401-412

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2010.10400703

Keywords

adolescent; brain; functional MRI; marijuana; working memory

Funding

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [R01 AA13419, R01 AA11033, R01 AA013419, R01 AA013419-08] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA021182, R01 DA021182-04] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Some neurocognitive recovery occurs within a month of abstinence from heavy marijuana use, yet functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has revealed altered activation among recent and abstinent adult users. We compared fMRI response during a spatial working memory (SWM) task between adolescent marijuana users with brief and sustained durations of abstinence. Participants were 13 recent users (two to seven days abstinent), 13 abstinent users (27 to 60 days abstinent), and 18 nonusing controls, all ages 15 to 18. Groups were similar on demographics, had no psychiatric or medical disorders, and user groups were similar on substance histories. Teens performed a two-back SWM task during fMRI. Recent users showed greater fMRI response in medial and left superior prefrontal cortices, as well as bilateral insula. Abstinent users had increased response in the right precentral gyms (clusters >= 1328 mu l, p < .05). Results suggest that adolescents who recently used marijuana show increased brain activity in regions associated with working memory updating and inhibition. This study preliminarily suggests that (1) recent marijuana use may disrupt neural connections associated with SWM and result in compensatory brain response, and (2) sustained abstinence from marijuana may be associated with improvements in SWM response among adolescents.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available