Skip to content

Neural Mechanisms of Cannabinoid-impaired Decision-Making in Emerging Adults

Neural Mechanisms of Cannabinoid-impaired Decision-Making in Emerging Adults

Status
Completed
Phases
Early Phase 1
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03944954
Enrollment
66
Registered
2019-05-10
Start date
2017-07-15
Completion date
2023-12-13
Last updated
2024-04-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Behavior Problem, Neurosciences, Substance-Related Disorders

Brief summary

Emerging adults are a particularly vulnerable group for experiencing the immediate and potentially lifelong negative impacts of habitual cannabis use, and trends suggest that cannabis use disorder (CUD) will soon escalate in this population. The proposed research will combine clinical pharmacology, non-invasive brain stimulation, and neuroimaging techniques to establish the brain mechanisms of cannabinoid-impaired decision-making processes in emerging adults with CUD. Results from this project will inform CUD prevention/treatment efforts in this high-risk group and address a growing public health concern.

Detailed description

This mentored career development award (K01) will enable Dr. Michael J. Wesley to achieve his long-term goal of becoming an independent investigator with a clinical research program examining cannabis use disorder (CUD) in emerging adults, which is a current NIDA funding priority. Dr. Wesley is a new Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky (UK) College of Medicine. The activities proposed in this award build on Dr. Wesley's background in neuroimaging and drug abuse research and will allow him to accomplish these specific short-term objectives: Become an expert in (1) clinical pharmacology and (2) non-invasive brain stimulation research, and enhance/develop his (3) knowledge of the responsible conduct of research, (4) skills for scientific communication and grant writing, and (5) ability to manage an independent research program. UK has numerous faculty and projects focused on drug abuse research and is an ideal environment for Dr. Wesley to successfully complete this award. Dr. Wesley has assembled a stellar mentoring team consisting of Dr. Josh Lile (Mentor), who runs a successful NIH-funded clinical pharmacology research program at UK and Drs. Mark George (Co-Mentor) and Colleen A. Hanlon of the Brain Stimulation Laboratory at the Medical University of South Carolina, Together they will guide and oversee Dr. Wesley's training in clinical pharmacology, brain stimulation, and scientific communication and grant writing. Dr. Wesley has proposed to engage in a series of formal classes, lab exchanges, and research seminars/meetings that will assist him in accomplishing the objectives of this award. The proposed research project is novel, innovative, and rigorous. It will combine the acute administration of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, with brain stimulation and neuroimaging to examine the role of the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and connected brain areas in drug-impaired decision-making processes. Specifically, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) will be used to raise or lower DLPFC functionality following the administration THC in randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled experiments. Aim 1 will test the hypotheses that excitatory TMS (raising DLPFC functionality) will attenuate the impairing effects of THC on study outcomes. Aim 2 will test the hypotheses that inhibitory TMS (lowering DLPFC functionality) will enhance the impairing effects of THC on study outcomes. Results from this project will improve the investigator's understanding of the mechanisms involved in cannabis-impaired decision-making, which will inform CUD management and address a growing public health concern.

Interventions

DEVICEPlacebo TMS Sham

Individuals will receive placebo dose and sham TMS.

DRUGMarinol 10Mg Capsule TMS Sham

Individuals will receive 10mg dose and sham TMS.

DRUGMarinol 30Mg Capsule TMS Sham

Individuals will receive 30mg dose and sham TMS.

DEVICEPlacebo TMS Real

Individuals will receive placebo and real TMS.

OTHERMarinol 10Mg Capsule TMS Real

Individuals will receive10mg THC and real TMS. Intervention type: Other (combination device/drug intervention)

OTHERMarinol 30Mg Capsule TMS Real

Individuals will receive 30mg THC and real TMS. Intervention type: Other (combination device/drug intervention)

Sponsors

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
CollaboratorNIH
Michael J. Wesley, PhD
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
SINGLE (Investigator)

Masking description

Functionality will be tested following combinations of THC and TMS will be tested in randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled experiments.

Intervention model description

Participants will be assigned to either excitatory or inhibitory TMS treatment arms. All individuals will receive multiple doses of oral THC (0, 10 and 30mg) and TMS (real or sham).

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 34 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Habitual cannabis use problems * Body Mass Index ≤30

Exclusion criteria

* Past or current serious physical or mental health * Sesame seed oil allergy * Irregular health issues identified by the Study Physician * Standard magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Alpha Learning RateMeasure collected at 2 time points: Baseline (0HR) and Post TMS Administration (3HR)In a Probabilistic Reinforcement Learning Choice (PRLC) task, two stimuli are presented and choosing either could result in a monetary reinforcer, but the reinforcement probabilities of the stimuli differ, and change throughout the task. Individuals attempt to optimize choices according to learned probabilities and track changing probabilities over time. PRLC performance allows mathematical modeling of trial-by-trial data under real-world uncertainty and yields computational parameters, such as the learning rate. Choice data were analyzed using a Rescorla-Wanger learning model with an alpha learning rate, beta inverse temperature, and perseveration global parameters. Model-derived learning rates are indicative of an individual's ability to learn from previous choice outcomes to update future decision-making. For this task, learning rates range from 0-1 with lower values indicative of more optimal learning.
Self-Report Subjective HighMeasured 2 times: Baseline (0HR) and 3 hours (3HR) after capsule administration on each drug condition (0mg, 10mg, 30mg)A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to measure the acute subjective effects of THC at varying doses (0mg, 10mg, 30mg). Responses are made for VAS items along a 100-unit scale anchored on the extremes by Not At All (0) and Extremely (100) with a higher score meaning more of the effect. Participants were instructed to select Not At All (0) for all baseline (0HR) measures. Post-TMS administration (real or sham), participant self-reported their subjective high on the VAS with higher values indicating a more intense sensation of high.
Elasticity of DemandMeasured 2 times: Baseline (0HR) and Post-TMS (3HR) after THC administration on each drug condition (0mg, 10mg, 30mg).Elasticity of Demand was measured by the Cannabis Purchase Task (CPT) where participants are asked how many hits of cannabis they would consume at 16 different price points in ascending order ($0-$140). Higher elasticity values indicate a greater sensitivity to changing price points resulting in a reduced demand for hits of THC at increasing price points.
Working Memory PerformanceMeasured 2 times: Baseline (0HR) and Post-TMS (3HR) after THC administration on each drug condition (0mg, 10mg, 30mg).Working memory (WM), the ability to hold a finite amount of information for a set amount of time, is measured by the N-Back task. Here, participants were presented with a sequence of letters and must indicate when the letter currently being viewed matches the one from N steps earlier in the sequence. The load factor N is adjusted between 0, 1, and 2 to adjust the difficulty of the task (0-Back = no WM load, 1-Back = minimal WM load, 2-Back = greater WM load) where a higher score means better memory performance. Outcomes are reported as the Total Accuracy Percentage (Correct Choices/Total Choices) x 100%

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Forty young adults (N=40; n=20 per Experiment) aged 18-34 who report habitual cannabis use (20 or more days per month) or meet hazardous cannabis use criteria will complete the study. A 15% dropout rate is assumed. Subjects will be matched on sex, age and education. Enrollment will approximate the demographic proportions of Fayette County, KY. so we anticipate enrolling members mostly from those demographic categories.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Excitatory TMS
Combinations of THC and excitatory TMS. Marinol: Individuals will receive 0, 10, 30mg of Marinol. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Individuals will receive real and sham TMS
58
Inhibitory TMS
Combinations of THC and inhibitory TMS. Marinol: Individuals will receive 0, 10, 30mg of Marinol. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Individuals will receive real and sham TMS
8
Total66

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyFailed Medical Screening70
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up180
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject224

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicExcitatory TMSInhibitory TMSTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
58 Participants8 Participants66 Participants
Age, Continuous22.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.5
27 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7
23.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.3
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
57 Participants8 Participants65 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
3 Participants0 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
15 Participants1 Participants16 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
3 Participants0 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
37 Participants7 Participants44 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
58 participants8 participants66 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
13 Participants3 Participants16 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
45 Participants5 Participants50 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 180 / 171 / 17
other
Total, other adverse events
1 / 180 / 170 / 17
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 180 / 170 / 17

Outcome results

Primary

Alpha Learning Rate

In a Probabilistic Reinforcement Learning Choice (PRLC) task, two stimuli are presented and choosing either could result in a monetary reinforcer, but the reinforcement probabilities of the stimuli differ, and change throughout the task. Individuals attempt to optimize choices according to learned probabilities and track changing probabilities over time. PRLC performance allows mathematical modeling of trial-by-trial data under real-world uncertainty and yields computational parameters, such as the learning rate. Choice data were analyzed using a Rescorla-Wanger learning model with an alpha learning rate, beta inverse temperature, and perseveration global parameters. Model-derived learning rates are indicative of an individual's ability to learn from previous choice outcomes to update future decision-making. For this task, learning rates range from 0-1 with lower values indicative of more optimal learning.

Time frame: Measure collected at 2 time points: Baseline (0HR) and Post TMS Administration (3HR)

Population: Of the 58 total participants assigned to the excitatory TMS condition, 15 individuals completed at least one experimental session.~Of the 8 total participants assigned to the inhibitory TMS condition, 6 individuals completed at least one experimental session.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 0mg Sham.62 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.28
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 0mg Sham.55 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.31
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 0mg Real.71 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.27
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 0mg Real.58 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.33
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 10mg Sham.62 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.32
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 10mg Sham.62 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.28
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 10mg Real.63 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.27
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 10mg Real.63 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.28
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 30mg Sham.64 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.29
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 30mg Sham.60 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.29
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 30mg Real.66 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.32
Excitatory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 30mg Real.79 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.17
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 30mg Real.24 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.16
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 0mg Sham.43 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.37
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 10mg Real.53 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.38
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 0mg Sham.21 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.23
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 30mg Sham.41 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.3
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 0mg Real.53 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.41
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 10mg Real.32 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.38
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 0mg Real.48 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.34
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 30mg Real.30 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.22
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 10mg Sham.49 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.15
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning RateBaseline 30mg Sham.48 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.37
Inhibitory TMSAlpha Learning Rate3HR 10mg Sham.52 Alpha CoefficientStandard Deviation 0.41
Primary

Elasticity of Demand

Elasticity of Demand was measured by the Cannabis Purchase Task (CPT) where participants are asked how many hits of cannabis they would consume at 16 different price points in ascending order ($0-$140). Higher elasticity values indicate a greater sensitivity to changing price points resulting in a reduced demand for hits of THC at increasing price points.

Time frame: Measured 2 times: Baseline (0HR) and Post-TMS (3HR) after THC administration on each drug condition (0mg, 10mg, 30mg).

Population: Of the 58 participants assigned to the excitatory TMS condition, 13 individuals had usable data from at least one experimental session.~Of the 8 participants assigned to the excitatory TMS condition, 4 individuals had usable data from at least one experimental session.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Excitatory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 30mg THC Real TMS.004 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.002
Excitatory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 0mg THC Real TMS.006 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.009
Excitatory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 0mg THC Sham TMS.005 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.009
Excitatory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 0mg THC Sham TMS.005 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.009
Excitatory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 10mg THC Sham TMS.006 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.009
Excitatory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 10mg THC Real TMS.005 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.008
Excitatory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 10mg THC Sham TMS.005 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.009
Excitatory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 0mg THC Real TMS.005 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.008
Excitatory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 30mg THC Sham TMS.004 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.004
Excitatory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 10mg THC Real TMS.006 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.009
Excitatory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 30mg THC Sham TMS.005 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.006
Excitatory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 30mg THC Real TMS.006 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.008
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 30mg THC Sham TMS.007 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.007
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 0mg THC Sham TMS.005 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.006
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 0mg THC Real TMS.004 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.003
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 0mg THC Real TMS.007 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.007
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 10mg THC Real TMS.003 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.002
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 10mg THC Real TMS.002 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.001
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 30mg THC Real TMS.000 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 0mg THC Sham TMS.006 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.009
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 10mg THC Sham TMS.004 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.002
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of Demand3HR 10mg THC Sham TMS.003 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.002
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 30mg THC Sham TMS.004 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.004
Inhibitory TMSElasticity of DemandBaseline 30mg THC Real TMS.005 log(hits per dollar)Standard Deviation 0.003
Primary

Self-Report Subjective High

A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to measure the acute subjective effects of THC at varying doses (0mg, 10mg, 30mg). Responses are made for VAS items along a 100-unit scale anchored on the extremes by Not At All (0) and Extremely (100) with a higher score meaning more of the effect. Participants were instructed to select Not At All (0) for all baseline (0HR) measures. Post-TMS administration (real or sham), participant self-reported their subjective high on the VAS with higher values indicating a more intense sensation of high.

Time frame: Measured 2 times: Baseline (0HR) and 3 hours (3HR) after capsule administration on each drug condition (0mg, 10mg, 30mg)

Population: Of the 58 participants assigned to the Excitatory TMS condition, as max of 14 participants had usable data from at least one experimental session.~Of the 8 participants assigned to the Inhibitory TMS condition, as max of 4 participants had usable data from at least one experimental session.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Excitatory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 30mg THC Real TMS24.6 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 27.3
Excitatory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 10mg THC Sham TMS15 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 20.3
Excitatory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 0mg THC Sham TMS1.2 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
Excitatory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 10mg THC Real TMS13.8 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 24.4
Excitatory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 30mg THC Sham TMS36.5 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 32
Excitatory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 0mg THC Real TMS2.9 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 5.4
Inhibitory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 30mg THC Sham TMS12.5 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 21.8
Inhibitory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 0mg THC Real TMS0 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 0
Inhibitory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 10mg THC Real TMS3.8 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 7.5
Inhibitory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 30mg THC Real TMS5 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 10
Inhibitory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 10mg THC Sham TMS1.3 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 2.5
Inhibitory TMSSelf-Report Subjective HighHigh 0mg THC Sham TMS3.8 score on a 100pt VAS scaleStandard Deviation 7.5
Primary

Working Memory Performance

Working memory (WM), the ability to hold a finite amount of information for a set amount of time, is measured by the N-Back task. Here, participants were presented with a sequence of letters and must indicate when the letter currently being viewed matches the one from N steps earlier in the sequence. The load factor N is adjusted between 0, 1, and 2 to adjust the difficulty of the task (0-Back = no WM load, 1-Back = minimal WM load, 2-Back = greater WM load) where a higher score means better memory performance. Outcomes are reported as the Total Accuracy Percentage (Correct Choices/Total Choices) x 100%

Time frame: Measured 2 times: Baseline (0HR) and Post-TMS (3HR) after THC administration on each drug condition (0mg, 10mg, 30mg).

Population: Of the 58 participants assigned to the excitatory TMS condition, 14 individuals had usable data from at least one experimental session.~Of the 8 participants assigned to the excitatory TMS condition, 4 individuals had usable data from at least one experimental session.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 30mg THC Sham TMS86.9 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 6.9
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 0mg THC Real TMS93.0 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.2
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 0mg THC Real TMS97.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.4
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 0mg THC Sham TMS98.1 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 2.2
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 0mg THC Real TMS91.4 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.1
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 10mg THC Real TMS90.2 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.9
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 0mg THC Real TMS87.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 5.8
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 0mgTHC Sham TMS92.1 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.8
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 10mg THC Real TMS96.7 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.1
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 0mg THC Real TMS98.0 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 1.7
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 10mg THC Real TMS92.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.9
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 0mg THC Sham TMS88.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.3
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 10mg THC Real TMS87.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 7.5
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 10mg THC Real TMS93.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.3
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 30mg THC Real TMS96.7 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.6
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 10mg THC Sham TMS96.4 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.8
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 30mg THC Real TMS86.9 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 5.9
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 0mg THC Real TMS90.1 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.7
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 0mg THC Sham TMS96.7 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.1
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 10mg THC Sham TMS92.1 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.9
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 0mg THC Sham TMS91.7 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 5.6
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 30mg THC Real TMS97.7 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 2.2
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 0mg THC Sham TMS89.0 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 6
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 10mg THC Sham TMS87.9 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 6.4
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 10mg THC Sham TMS96.2 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 30mg THC Real TMS88.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 7.4
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 10mg THC Sham TMS92.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 5.5
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 30mg THC Sham TMS96.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.5
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 10mg THC Sham TMS88.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 7
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 10mg THC Real TMS97.1 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.4
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 30mg THC Sham TMS96.7 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.7
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 30mg THC Sham TMS95 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 2.8
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 30mg THC Sham TMS92.9 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.2
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 30mg THC Real TMS89.2 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 5.5
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 30mg THC Sham TMS87.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 8.5
Excitatory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 30mg THC Real TMS92.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.68
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 30mg THC Sham TMS87.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 14.9
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 30mg THC Real TMS90.6 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 5.2
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 0mg THC Real TMS96.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.3
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 0mg THC Real TMS90 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 12.4
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 0mg THC Real TMS86.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 21.4
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 10mg THC Real TMS98.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 1.4
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 10mg THC Real TMS93.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 7.6
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 10mg THC Real TMS93.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.8
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 30mg THC Real TMS98.1 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 1.3
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 30mg THC Real TMS85 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 21.7
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 30mg THC Real TMS87.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 14.3
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 0mg THC Sham TMS96.9 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.2
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 0mgTHC Sham TMS89.4 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 11.3
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 0mg THC Sham TMS85.0 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 21.4
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 10mg THC Sham TMS93.1 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 12.1
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 10mg THC Sham TMS92.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 10.2
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 10mg THC Sham TMS83.8 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 19.7
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 0back 30mg THC Sham TMS96.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 2.5
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 1back 30mg THC Sham TMS90.6 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 5.5
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory PerformanceBaseline 2back 30mg THC Sham TMS87.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 12.6
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 0mg THC Real TMS96.7 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.2
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 0mg THC Real TMS92.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.5
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 0mg THC Real TMS89.4 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 13.6
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 10mg THC Real TMS98.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 1.4
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 10mg THC Real TMS97.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 4.3
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 10mg THC Real TMS95 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 6.6
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 30mg THC Real TMS98.1 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 2.4
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 30mg THC Real TMS90.6 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 8.8
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 0mg THC Sham TMS97.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 2
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 0mg THC Sham TMS93.8 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 7.8
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 0mg THC Sham TMS87.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 10.6
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 10mg THC Sham TMS90 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 18.4
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 10mg THC Sham TMS85.6 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 19.1
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 2back 10mg THC Sham TMS82.5 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 23.8
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 0back 30mg THC Sham TMS94.4 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 3.8
Inhibitory TMSWorking Memory Performance3HR 1back 30mg THC Sham TMS91.3 percentage of correct choicesStandard Deviation 7.5

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026