No differences in inhibitory control or prefrontal activation during a cannabis cue stop-signal task across CUDIT-R-defined CUD-risk groups.

Christopher R Pickering, Valentina Lorenzetti, Andrew Jones, Martin Guest, Paul Christiansen, Carl A Roberts

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Christopher R PickeringDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK. Christopher.Pickering@liverpool.ac.uk.

Valentina LorenzettiNeuroscience of Addiction and Mental Health Program, Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, 3065, Australia.

Andrew JonesSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK.

Martin GuestDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.

Paul ChristiansenDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.

Carl A RobertsDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleCannabis use continues to increase globally, with a growing proportion of users exhibiting problematic patterns of use. Although neural differences in reward and inhibitory control systems are commonly reported in individuals who use cannabis relative to individuals not reporting cannabis use, findings using behavioural tasks are inconsistent. This is possibly due to lack of differentiation between regular and more problematic patterns of use.

objectivesThis study investigated whether inhibitory control performance and associated prefrontal and orbitofrontal activation differed across CUDIT-R-stratified levels of CUD risk.

methodsParticipants (N = 81) were divided into three groups based on CUDIT-R scores: 30 high-CUD-risk individuals who use cannabis (≥ 12), 21 low-CUD-risk individuals who use cannabis (< 8), and 30 individuals not reporting cannabis use. Individuals with a current substance use disorder, including cannabis use disorder, were excluded from participation. All completed a cannabis-cue specific Stop-Signal Task (SST) while functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to measure oxygenated (oxyHb) and deoxygenated haemoglobin (deoxyHb) concentrations in the prefrontal cortices. Behavioural performance and neural activation were compared across groups.

resultsNo significant behavioural or neural differences were found between the groups.

conclusionsThe study found no evidence of impaired inhibitory control or differential prefrontal activation across CUDIT-R-stratified levels of CUD risk. The results suggest incorporating further diagnostic stratification, multimodal imaging, and ecologically valid methods in future research to better characterise cannabis-related neural adaptations and inform clinical practice.

Indexed as

cannabiscannabis cue reactivitycannabis use disorderCUDIT-RfNIRSinhibitory controlprefrontal cortexstop-signalsubstance use

Identifiers

PMID42234106

DOI10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.04.006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.