4.7 Article

Cognitive Control and White Matter Callosal Microstructure in Methamphetamine-Dependent Subjects: A Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 122-128

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.08.004

关键词

Cognitive control; corpus callosum; diffusion tensor imaging; methamphetamine; Stroop; substance abuse

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [DA16293, DA14359, DA10641]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Methamphetamine (MA) abuse causes damage to structures within the human cerebrum, with particular susceptibility to white matter (WM). Abnormalities have been reported in anterior regions with less evidence of changes in posterior regions. Methamphetamine abusers have also shown deficits on attention tests that measure response conflict and cognitive control. Methods: We examined cognitive control with a computerized measure of the Stroop selective attention task and indices of WM microstructure obtained from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) in the callosal genu and splenium of 37 currently abstinent MA abusers and 17 non-substance abusing control subjects. Measurements of fractional anisotropy (FA), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of callosal fibers, and diffusion tensor eigenvalues were obtained in all subjects. Results: The MA abusers exhibited greater Stroop reaction time interference (i.e., reduced cognitive control) (p = .04) compared with control subjects. After correcting for multiple comparisons, FA within the genu correlated significantly with measures of cognitive control in the MA abusers (p = .04, Bonferroni corrected) but not in control subjects (p = .26). Group differences in genu but not splenium FA were trend significant (p = .09). Conclusions: Methamphetamine abuse seems to alter anterior callosal WM microstructure with less evidence of change within posterior callosal WM microstructure. The DTI indices within the genu but not splenium correlated with measures of cognitive control in chronic MA abusers.

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