Department of Psychology.
NIDA Clinical Trials Network Data and Statistics Center.
Psychol Addict Behav. 2022 Dec;36(8):1023-1035. doi: 10.1037/adb0000821. Epub 2022 Feb 24.
We examined central nervous system [CNS] stress responses among deprived and continuing heavy marijuana users and nonusers.
Participants ( = 210; 46.7% female; = 21.99; 91.4% White, 94.3% Non-Hispanic) were heavy marijuana users ( = 134) and nonusers ( = 76). Heavy users were randomly assigned to a 3-day marijuana deprivation condition ( = 68) or to continue using regularly ( = 66). Participants completed two threat-of-shock stressor tasks that manipulated stressor predictability by varying shock probability or timing. We measured central stress responses via startle potentiation (stressor conditions minus matched no-stressor condition). We examined two group contrasts (heavy use: all heavy users vs. nonusers; deprivation: deprived vs. continuing heavy users) on startle potentiation overall and moderated by stressor predictability (unpredictable vs. predictable).
Deprivation did not affect startle potentiation overall (timing task: = .184; probability task: p = .328) or differently by stressor predictability (timing task: = .147; probability task: = .678). Heavy use did not affect startle potentiation overall (timing task: = .213; probability task: = .843) or differently by stressor predictability (timing task: = .655; probability task: = .273). Posthoc analyses showed mixed evidence of general startle reactivity × deprivation interaction on startle potentiation overall (timing task: = .019; probability task: = .056) and differently by stressor predictability (probability task: = .024; timing task: = .364).
A history of marijuana use or acute deprivation did not alter central stress responses despite prominent theoretical expectations. This study adds to growing research on central stress responses in individuals with a history of drug use and begins to parse moderating roles of individual differences and stressor characteristics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
我们研究了被剥夺和持续大量使用大麻的人以及非使用者的中枢神经系统（CNS）应激反应。
参与者（n=210；46.7%为女性；M=21.99；91.4%为白人，94.3%为非西班牙裔）为大量使用大麻者（n=134）和非使用者（n=76）。大量使用者被随机分配到为期 3 天的大麻剥夺条件（n=68）或继续定期使用（n=66）。参与者完成了两项威胁性休克应激任务，通过改变休克概率或时间来操纵应激源的可预测性。我们通过惊吓增强（应激条件减去匹配的无应激条件）来测量中枢应激反应。我们检查了两个组对比（大量使用：所有大量使用者与非使用者；剥夺：被剥夺与继续大量使用者）在惊吓增强方面的总体情况，并根据应激源的可预测性进行了调节（不可预测与可预测）。
剥夺对惊吓增强没有总体影响（时间任务：p=0.184；概率任务：p=0.328）或根据应激源的可预测性有不同的影响（时间任务：p=0.147；概率任务：p=0.678）。大量使用对惊吓增强没有总体影响（时间任务：p=0.213；概率任务：p=0.843）或根据应激源的可预测性有不同的影响（时间任务：p=0.655；概率任务：p=0.273）。事后分析显示，一般惊吓反应与剥夺的相互作用在惊吓增强方面存在混合证据（时间任务：p=0.019；概率任务：p=0.056），并且根据应激源的可预测性也有不同的影响（概率任务：p=0.024；时间任务：p=0.364）。
尽管有明显的理论预期，但大麻使用史或急性剥夺并没有改变中枢应激反应。这项研究增加了对有药物使用史的个体中枢应激反应的研究，并开始分析个体差异和应激源特征的调节作用。
