| Literature DB >> 21698275 |
Lorenza S Colzato1, Manuel J Ruiz, Wery P M van den Wildenberg, Bernhard Hommel.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Khat consumption has increased during the last decades in Eastern Africa and has become a global phenomenon spreading to ethnic communities in the rest of the world, such as The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. Very little is known, however, about the relation between khat use and cognitive control functions in khat users.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21698275 PMCID: PMC3115937 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020602
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic characteristics and self-reported use of khat and other psychoactive drugs.
| Sample | Khat users | Khat-free controls |
| N (M:F) | 20 (18:2) | 20 (18:2) |
| Age (years) | 31.3 (6.5) | 30.7 (5.8) |
| Raven IQ | 110 (3.3) | 112 (3.0) |
| Khat exposure (years) | 10.5 (6.5) | 0 |
| Khat times in a week | 3.1 (1.8) | 0 |
| Bundles used (khat shrubs) | 3.0 (1.2) | 0 |
| Bundles used in one session | 1.0 (1.9) | 0 |
| Hours chewing khat | 5.8 (1.7) | 0 |
| Monthly exposure (joints) | 2.0 (0.4) | 2.1 (0.3) |
| Monthly drinks (units) | 8.4 (0.5) | 6.4 (0.6) |
| Lifetime cocaine (grams) | 0 | 0 |
| Lifetime amphetamines (grams) | 0 | 0 |
| Lifetime ketamine (grams) | 0 | 0 |
| Lifetime Speed (grams) | 0 | 0 |
Standard deviations are presented within parentheses.
Raven IQ: IQ measured by means of the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices,
Bundles used: number of khat bundles consumed in a typical day/session
Hours chewing khat: amount of time the users spend chewing khat in a typical day/session
Monthly drinks: monthly number of standard alcoholic drinks
Nonsignificant group difference
*Significant group difference, p<0.05
**Significant group difference, p<0.01
Means responses latencies (in milliseconds), error rates (in percent), and standard deviations of all relevant measures for the N-back task and task switching.
| Task | Khat users | Khat-free controls |
| N-BACK (WM monitoring/updating) | ||
| 1-back | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | 494 (55) | 504 (62) |
| Accuracy (%) | 70 (17.5) | 91 (7.9) |
| 2-back | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | 497 (68) | 523 (50) |
| Accuracy (%) | 62 (12.9) | 81 (11.4) |
| TASK SWITCHING (flexibility) | ||
| Repetition | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | 494 (25) | 455 (24) |
| Error Rates (%) | 20.7 (1.6) | 3.8 (1.5) |
| Alternation | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | 581 (27) | 492 (25) |
| Error Rates (%) | 21.8 (1.7) | 4.2 (1.6) |
|
| ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | 87 | 37 |
| Error Rates (%) | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Switch Costs Reaction Times: difference in RT between alternation trials and repetition trials
Switch Costs Error Rates: difference in error rates between alternation trials and repetition trials
*Significant group difference, p<0.05 (referring to the interaction effect reported in the text)