| Literature DB >> 23801952 |
Lorenza S Colzato1, Roberta Sellaro, Manuel J Ruiz, Katarzyna Sikora, Bernhard Hommel.
Abstract
Khat consumption has become a worldwide phenomenon broadening from Eastern Africa and the south west of the Arabian Peninsula to ethnic communities in the rest of the world. So far, the cognitive effects of khat use are poorly understood and no studies have looked into the relation between acute khat use and cognitive control functions, the way we control our thoughts and goal directed behavior. We studied how acute khat use affects the emergence and the resolution of response conflict, a central cognitive control function. Khat users (n = 11) and khat-free controls (n = 18) were matched in terms of education, sex, alcohol, and cannabis consumption. Groups were tested on response conflict, as measured by the Simon task. In one single session, participants worked through two task blocks: the khat group chewed exclusively khat whereas the khat-free group chewed solely a gum. Results showed that in the second block, which reflects the acute impact of khat, the khat group was better than controls in resolving stimulus-induced response conflict as indexed by a smaller Simon effect. These results suggest that the acute intake of khat may improve participants' ability of handling response conflict.Entities:
Keywords: Simon task; dopamine; interference control; khat; response conflict
Year: 2013 PMID: 23801952 PMCID: PMC3686360 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00285
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Demographic characteristics and self-reported use of khat and other psychoactive drugs.
| 11 (11:0) | 18 (15:3) | |
| Age (years) | 31.5 (5.4) | 20.8 (3.0) |
| Khat exposure (years) | 8.8 (5.2) | 0 |
| Khat times in a week | 3.3 (1.7) | 0 |
| Bundles used (khat shrubs) | 3.6 (1.8) | 0 |
| Bundles used in one session | 3.6 (1.8) | 0 |
| Hours chewing khat | 6.2 (2.1) | 0 |
| Last time khat use (in hours) | 30 (6.0) | 0 |
| Weekly cigarettes | 10 (9.8) | 11 (24.1) |
| Monthly exposure (joints) | 1.2 (3.1) | 0.9 (1.9) |
| Monthly drinks (units) | 0.6 (1.5) | 1.4 (1.1) |
| 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.
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.
Non-significant difference.
Significant group difference,
p < 0.01.
Results of analysis of variance on mean reaction time of correct responses (RT) and percentage of errors (PE).
| Group (G) | 27 | 42964.62 | 5.95, | 26.92 | 3.68, |
| Block (B) | 27 | 4054.73 | 13.53, | 6.41 | 2.23, |
| Correspondence (C) | 27 | 762.53 | 125.13, | 9.43 | 61.54, |
| G × B | 27 | 4054.73 | 0.51, | 6.41 | 0.60, |
| G × C | 27 | 762.53 | 0.11, | 9.43 | 0.01, |
| B × C | 27 | 367.08 | 7.91, | 5.21 | 5.08, |
| G × B × C | 27 | 367.08 | 5.42, | 5.21 | 0.37, |
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01;
p < 0.001.
Figure 1Mean Simon effect (calculated as the RT difference between non-correspondent and correspondent trials) as a function of block (1 vs. 2) and group (khat users vs. khat-free controls). Standard errors of the difference between non-correspondent trials and correspondent trials are represented by the error bars.
Performance on the Simon task as a function of block (1 vs. 2), correspondence (correspondent vs. non-correspondent) and group (khat users vs. khat-free controls).
| Correspondence | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | 550 (32.8) | 516 (28.3) |
| Error Rates (%) | 3.0 (0.5) | 3.2 (0.7) |
| Non-correspondence | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | 626 (39.6) | 554 (30.6) |
| Error Rates (%) | 8.9 (1.5) | 6.6 (1.2) |
| Simon effect | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | ||
| Error Rates (%) | 5.9 (1.3) | 3.4 (1.0) |
| Correspondence | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | 452 (25.6) | 417 (22.1) |
| Error Rates (%) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.4 (0.6) |
| Non-correspondence | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | 514 (30.9) | 476 (23.9) |
| Error Rates (%) | 6.3 (1.1) | 5.3 (0.9) |
| Simon effect | ||
| Reaction Times (ms) | ||
| Error Rates (%) | 5.3 (1.0) | 3.8 (0.8) |
Simon effect is calculated as the Reaction Times and the Error Rates difference between the correspondent and non-correspondent condition. Standard errors of reaction times and error rates are presented in parentheses.
Bold values indicate significant difference between blocks,
p < 0.05.