Cannabis Changed Response Timing More Consistently Than Serial-Addition Accuracy

In this acute cannabis experiment, slowing on a serial-addition task appeared across more tested conditions than a significant reduction in the total correct. Response latency and accuracy should therefore be reported separately.

The task combined attention and calculation

Participants viewed a sequence of single-digit numbers and selected the sum of the two most recently presented numbers. Although named the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task, the computerized version described in this report used numbers displayed on a screen.

The study assessed total correct across ninety trials and reaction times for responses. Seventeen adults with no cannabis use in the preceding month received placebo, 10 mg THC and 25 mg THC through smoked and vaporized cannabis sessions.

Slower correct responses did not imply every accuracy comparison was significant

The report describes peak reaction time for correct responses slowing by at least 120 milliseconds relative to placebo at both active doses and inhalation methods. In contrast, its summary of significant total-correct reductions identified the 25 mg vaporized condition.

This pattern would be obscured by calling the task simply “positive” or “negative.” An accuracy result without its latency measure could underdescribe performance; a latency result should not be rewritten as a significant accuracy deficit in every condition.

Limits on individual conclusions

These are group comparisons on a trained laboratory task, not a diagnosis of a particular person’s ability to drive or perform every calculation. The sample was small and used cannabis infrequently. The companion pharmacokinetic publication reports the same experiment, and the published correction clarifies the peak-change table title.

Related analysis: the fixed-dose smoked and vaporized cannabis comparison.

Research cited

Spindle and colleagues (2018), Acute Effects of Smoked and Vaporized Cannabis in Healthy Adults Who Infrequently Use Cannabis: A Crossover Trial. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.4841.

Published correction concerning the table title.

Spread the love


The National Black Lawyers

top 40 lawyers

civil trial law

Lawyers of Distinction

Loading...

Recent Blog Articles

The HGN Comparison Did Not Validate a Standalone Cannabis Impairment Test

The HGN analysis compared small groups defined by self-reported duration. It did not establish a standalone diagnostic accuracy for identifying cannabis-impaired drivers. What the statistical comparison involved Forty-four participants underwent horizontal gaze nystagmus assessment, with forty-three examined at three hours after smoking. The paper compared HGN incidence at that time…

Spread the love

Read Article: The HGN Comparison Did Not Validate a Standalone Cannabis Impairment Test

Stratified Cannabis Duration Patterns Coexisted With a Null Overall Correlation

The paper described an inverse pattern after grouping participants by self-reported duration, while its unstratified correlation between baseline blood THC and duration was nonsignificant. Both findings belong in an accurate account. The two analyses asked related questions differently Baseline blood measurements were available for sixty-four participants. The authors divided participants…

Spread the love

Read Article: Stratified Cannabis Duration Patterns Coexisted With a Null Overall Correlation

Percent-of-Maximum Cannabis Ratings Did Not Compare Absolute Severity

The paper’s average percent-of-maximum curve normalized each participant to that person’s own highest self-rating. Equal percentages on that graph did not necessarily mean equal absolute symptom severity across participants. The denominator was personal Wurz and DeGregorio summarized self-assessments from seventy-four participants after cannabis smoking. Each person’s ratings were expressed relative…

Spread the love

Read Article: Percent-of-Maximum Cannabis Ratings Did Not Compare Absolute Severity

Speak with an expert today!

Contact the offices of Okorie Okorocha for professional and reliable advice which you can trust.

Call (424) 363-3347 Contact Us