John Brown1, Elinor McKone, Jeff Ward. 1. Department of Psychology, The Australian National University, Building 39, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. john.brown@anu.edu.au
Abstract
RATIONALE: Despite animal evidence that methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy) causes lasting damage in brain regions related to long-term memory, results regarding human memory performance have been variable. This variability may reflect the cognitive complexity of the memory tasks. However, previous studies have tested only a limited range of cognitive complexity. Furthermore, comparisons across different studies are made difficult by regional variations in ecstasy composition and patterns of use. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate ecstasy-related deficits in human verbal memory over a wide range of cognitive complexity using subjects drawn from a single geographical population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ecstasy users were compared to non-drug using controls on verbal tasks with low cognitive complexity (stem completion), moderate cognitive complexity (stem-cued recall and word list learning) and high cognitive complexity (California Verbal Learning Test, Verbal Paired Associates and a novel Verbal Triplet Associates test). Where significant differences were found, both groups were also compared to cannabis users. RESULTS: More cognitively complex memory tasks were associated with clearer ecstasy-related deficits than low complexity tasks. In the most cognitively demanding task, ecstasy-related deficits remained even after multiple learning opportunities, whereas the performance of cannabis users approached that of non-drug using controls. Ecstasy users also had weaker deliberate strategy use than both non-drug and cannabis controls. CONCLUSIONS: Results were consistent with the proposal that ecstasy-related memory deficits are more reliable on tasks with greater cognitive complexity. This could arise either because such tasks require a greater contribution from the frontal lobe or because they require greater interaction between multiple brain regions.
RATIONALE: Despite animal evidence that methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy) causes lasting damage in brain regions related to long-term memory, results regarding human memory performance have been variable. This variability may reflect the cognitive complexity of the memory tasks. However, previous studies have tested only a limited range of cognitive complexity. Furthermore, comparisons across different studies are made difficult by regional variations in ecstasy composition and patterns of use. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate ecstasy-related deficits in human verbal memory over a wide range of cognitive complexity using subjects drawn from a single geographical population. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ecstasy users were compared to non-drug using controls on verbal tasks with low cognitive complexity (stem completion), moderate cognitive complexity (stem-cued recall and word list learning) and high cognitive complexity (California Verbal Learning Test, Verbal Paired Associates and a novel Verbal Triplet Associates test). Where significant differences were found, both groups were also compared to cannabis users. RESULTS: More cognitively complex memory tasks were associated with clearer ecstasy-related deficits than low complexity tasks. In the most cognitively demanding task, ecstasy-related deficits remained even after multiple learning opportunities, whereas the performance of cannabis users approached that of non-drug using controls. Ecstasy users also had weaker deliberate strategy use than both non-drug and cannabis controls. CONCLUSIONS: Results were consistent with the proposal that ecstasy-related memory deficits are more reliable on tasks with greater cognitive complexity. This could arise either because such tasks require a greater contribution from the frontal lobe or because they require greater interaction between multiple brain regions.
Authors: Jichuan Wang; Robert G Carlson; Russel S Falck; Harvey A Siegal; Ahmmed Rahman; Linna Li Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2004-12-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Una D McCann; Zsolt Szabo; Esen Seckin; Peter Rosenblatt; William B Mathews; Hayden T Ravert; Robert F Dannals; George A Ricaurte Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: T Schilt; M M L de Win; G Jager; M W Koeter; N F Ramsey; B Schmand; W van den Brink Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: R Thomasius; K Petersen; R Buchert; B Andresen; P Zapletalova; L Wartberg; B Nebeling; A Schmoldt Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2003-03-11 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Ronald L Cowan; In Kyoon Lyoo; Seung Mo Sung; Kyung Heup Ahn; Minue J Kim; Jaeuk Hwang; Erika Haga; Ram Lakhan Panday Vimal; Scott E Lukas; Perry F Renshaw Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2003-12-11 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Denis T Gallagher; John E Fisk; Catharine Montgomery; Jeannie Judge; Sarita J Robinson; Paul J Taylor Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Erin E Morgan; Erica Weber; Alexandra S Rooney; Igor Grant; Steven Paul Woods Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Claire D Coles; Felicia C Goldstein; Mary Ellen Lynch; Xiangchuan Chen; Julie A Kable; Katrina C Johnson; Xiaoping Hu Journal: Brain Cogn Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Robert W Gould; H Donald Gage; Matthew L Banks; Brandi L Blaylock; Paul W Czoty; Michael A Nader Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2011-04-17 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: J Cobb Scott; Samantha T Slomiak; Jason D Jones; Adon F G Rosen; Tyler M Moore; Ruben C Gur Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Elisabet Cuyàs; Antonio Verdejo-García; Ana Beatriz Fagundo; Olha Khymenets; Joan Rodríguez; Aida Cuenca; Susana de Sola Llopis; Klaus Langohr; Jordi Peña-Casanova; Marta Torrens; Rocío Martín-Santos; Magí Farré; Rafael de la Torre Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael C Mithoefer; Mark T Wagner; Ann T Mithoefer; Lisa Jerome; Scott F Martin; Berra Yazar-Klosinski; Yvonne Michel; Timothy D Brewerton; Rick Doblin Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 4.153