4.4 Article

The differential relationship between cocaine use and marijuana use on decision-making performance over repeat testing with the Iowa Gambling Task

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 90, 期 1, 页码 2-11

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.02.004

关键词

cocaine; marijuana; decision-making; learning; Iowa gambling task; repeated testing

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR002719, M01 RR02719] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDA NIH HHS [DA 11426, R01 DA011426-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decision-making deficits area robust cognitive correlate of substance abuse, but few studies have addressed the long-term differential associations of cocaine use and marijuana (MJ) use on decision-making. This study utilized the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a widely used measure of decision-making, to investigate the relationship between cocaine and MJ use and IGT learning. We analyzed between and within group differences across two consecutive testing sessions in abstinent users of either Nil or cocaine. We assessed long-term correlates of the use of these drugs by evaluating users after 25 days of enforced abstinence. Results showed that both cocaine users and MJ users performed worse than controls on the total IGT net score. All groups showed learning between Session 1 and Session 2, but the cocaine users showed the smallest increase in performance. The pattern of learning from the beginning to the end (block x block) of the IGT (Session 2) was different for the drug groups, with the cocaine group showing more learning than the MJ group. Dose-related measures of cocaine use (g/week) and MJ use (joints/week) predicted IGT performance (the heavier the drug use the lower the performance). Differential correlates of cocaine use and MJ use on decision-making learning may have important implications for the development of novel treatment interventions. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据