4.7 Article

Cerebral metabolic dysfunction and impaired vigilance in recently abstinent methamphetamine abusers

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 58, 期 10, 页码 770-778

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.039

关键词

methamphetamine; drug abuse; brain imaging; sustained attention; continuous performance test

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR12169, RR08655, M01 RR 00865] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA 15179, 1 Y01 DA 50038] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Methamphetamine (MA) abusers have cognitive deficits, abnormal metabolic activity and structural deficits in limbic and paralimbic cortices, and reduced hippocampal volume. The links between cognitive impairment and these cerebral abnormalities are not established. Methods: We assessed cerebral glucose metabolism with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in 17 abstinent (4 to 7 days) methamphetamine users and 16 control subjects performing an auditory vigilance task and obtained structural magnetic resonance brain scans. Regional brain radioactivity served as a marker for relative glucose metabolism. Error rates on the task were related to regional radioactivity and hippocampal morphology Results. Methamphetamine users bad higher error rate than control subjects on the vigilance task. The groups showed different relationships between error rates and relative activity), in the anterior and middle cingulate gyrus and the insula. Whereas the MA user group showed negative correlations involving these regions, the control group showed positive correlations involving the cingulate cortex. Across groups, hippocampal metabolic and structural measures were negatively correlated with error rates. Conclusions: Dysfunction in the cingulate and insular cortices of recently abstinent MA abusers contribute to impaired vigilance and other cognitive functions requiring sustained attention. Hippocampal integrity predicts task performance in methamphetamine users as well as control subjects.

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

4.7
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