Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27168331›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2016

fMRI study of neural sensitization to hedonic stimuli in long-term, daily cannabis users.

Francesca M Filbey, Joseph Dunlop, Ariel Ketcherside, Jessica Baine, Tyler Rhinehardt, Brittany Kuhn, Sam DeWitt, Talha Alvi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Nonacute effects of cannabis use on motivation and reward sensitivity in humans: A systematic review.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse · 2019
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Francesca M FilbeyCenter for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas.
Joseph DunlopCenter for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas.
Ariel KetchersideCenter for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas.
Jessica BaineCenter for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas.
Tyler RhinehardtCenter for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas.
Brittany KuhnCenter for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas.
Sam DeWittCenter for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas.
Talha AlviCenter for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas.

Funding

Genetic and Environmental Modulators of the Brain's Response to Marijuana CuesR01DA030344 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS · PI FILBEY, FRANCESCA · 2012 to 2016
$2.4M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA030344
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although there is emergent evidence illustrating neural sensitivity to cannabis cues in cannabis users, the specificity of this effect to cannabis cues as opposed to a generalized hyper-sensitivity to hedonic stimuli has not yet been directly tested. Using fMRI, we presented 53 daily, long-term cannabis users and 68 non-using controls visual and tactile cues for cannabis, a natural reward, and, a sensory-perceptual control object to evaluate brain response to hedonic stimuli in cannabis users. The results showed an interaction between group and reward type such that the users had greater response during cannabis cues relative to natural reward cues (i.e., fruit) in the orbitofrontal cortex, striatum, anterior cingulate gyrus, and ventral tegmental area compared to non-users (cluster-threshold z = 2.3, P < 0.05). In the users, there were positive brain-behavior correlations between neural response to cannabis cues in fronto-striatal-temporal regions and subjective craving, marijuana-related problems, withdrawal symptoms, and levels of THC metabolites (cluster-threshold z = 2.3, P < 0.05). These findings demonstrate hyper-responsivity, and, specificity of brain response to cannabis cues in long-term cannabis users that are above that of response to natural reward cues. These observations are concordant with incentive sensitization models suggesting sensitization of mesocorticolimbic regions and disruption of natural reward processes following drug use. Although the cross-sectional nature of this study does not provide information on causality, the positive correlations between neural response and indicators of cannabis use (i.e., THC levels) suggest that alterations in the reward system are, in part, related to cannabis use. Hum Brain Mapp 37:3431-3443, 2016. © 2016 The Authors Human Brain Mapping Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

RewardAdultBrainBrain MappingCannabisCravingCross-Sectional StudiesCuesFemaleFood PreferencesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMarijuana AbuseMotivationNeuropsychological Testsaddictioncannabis use disordercue-elicited cravingfMRImarijuanamesocorticolimbicreward

Identifiers

PMID27168331
PMCPMC5012952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.