![Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset](https://d2csxpduxe849s.cloudfront.net/media/E32629C6-9347-4F84-81FEAEF7BFA342B3/0B4B1380-42EB-4FD5-9D7E2DBC603E79F8/webimage-C4875379-1478-416F-B03DF68FE3D8DBB5.png)
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Adolesc. Med.
Sec. Addiction in Adolescents
Volume 3 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fradm.2025.1541068
This article is part of the Research Topic Cannabis use and neurocognitive functioning in adolescents View all articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Cannabis and its main psychoactive constituent, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), are thought to weaken neurocognitive processes. However, past experimental research examining the acute effects of THC on neurocognition has produced mixed results. The current study aims to advance this literature through application of computational modeling and consideration of individual differences in cannabis use history and subjective drug effects. Methods: In a double-blind THC administration experiment, N = 30 healthy late adolescent and young adult occasional to regular cannabis users (53% men; ages 18-25) received THC (7.5mg, oral) and placebo. They completed a Go/No Go (GNG) task at the time of peak drug effect. We analyzed GNG data using the drift diffusion model, which provides measures of effects of THC on three components of neurocognition: cognitive efficiency (drift rate), response caution (boundary separation), and motor response execution processes (non-decision time). Bayesian statistical methods were used to assess relations between individuals’ neurocognitive parameter differences across the experimental conditions (THC – placebo) and several relevant covariates (cannabis use history and subjective drug effects).Results: Overall, THC versus placebo did not significantly alter any parameter. However, THC was associated with greater between-person variability in both drift rate and nondecision time, suggesting heterogeneity in the effects of the drug. THC weakened cognitive efficiency (slower drift rates) to a greater extent in participants with less cannabis use. Further, stronger subjective effects (drug “effect” and drug “high”) were related to poorer cognitive efficiency during THC intoxication.Discussion: Results add to our understanding of the acute neurocognitive effects of THC. Slower cognitive efficiency after THC was highly heterogeneous, and was related to both recent cannabis use and subjective drug effects. These findings support the notion that acute effects of cannabis on cognitive efficiency (GNG drift rate) are reduced by individuals’ tolerance to cannabis.
Keywords: Cannabis, δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), Neurocognition and behavior, inhibition, Go/ No-Go, Computational Psychiatry, Young Adult, subjective drug effects
Received: 06 Dec 2024; Accepted: 10 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Paige, Weigard, Ajilore, Phan, De Wit, Klumpp and Crane. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Katie J Paige, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.