Table 1. Acute Effects of Methamphetamine Studies.
Investigators | Domain | Methamphetamine route and dose | Participants and design | Cognitive findings | Caveats |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comer et al (2001) | Immediate and long-term memory (digit-recall task); visuospatial perception (DSST); reaction time, vigilance, and inhibitory control (DAT); sustained attention and inhibitory control (RIT); learning/memory (RAT) | Oral: 0, 5, 10 mg | Participants reported limited experience with stimulants, but did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for a MA-use disorder N=7 (within-subjects design) | MA produced no consistent effects on task performance | Doses examined were lower than those used recreationally Route of administration used is not typically associated with abuse Small number of participants studied |
Hart et al (2001) | Same as above | Oral: 0, 5, 10 mg | Participants reported previous experience with stimulants, but did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for a MA-use disorder N=8 (within-subjects design) | MA produced no consistent effects on task performance | Doses examined were lower than those used recreationally Route of administration used is not typically associated with abuse Small number of participants studied |
Hart et al (2002) | Same as above | Oral: 0, 5, 10, 20 mg | Participants reported previous experience with stimulants, but did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for a MA use disorder N=6 (within-subjects design) | ↑ Visuospatial perception ↑ Reaction time ↑ Learning/memory ↔Immediate and long-term memory ↔Vigilance ↔Inhibitory control ↔Sustained attention | Route of administration used is not typically associated with abuse Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated Small number of participants studied |
Hart et al (2008) | Same as above | Intranasal: 0, 12, 25, 50 mg/70 kg | Participants met the DSM-IV criteria for MA-use disorder N=11 (within-subjects design) | ↑ Visuospatial perception ↑Reaction time ↑ Vigilance ↔Immediate and long-term memory ↔Inhibitory control ↔ Sustained attention ↔ Learning/memory | Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Johnson et al (2000) | Sustained attention (RVIPT); conceptual ability (LRT); psychomotor skill (FTT) | Oral: 0, 0.21, 0.42 mg/kg (equivalent dose: ∼15, 30 mg) | Drug-naïve participants N=18 (within-subjects design) | ↑ Sustained attention ↑ Conceptual ability ↔ Psychomotor skill | Route of administration used is not typically associated with abuse Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Johnson et al (2005) | Sustained attention (RVIPT); visuospatial perception (DSST) | Intravenous: 0, 15, 30 mg | Participants met the DSM-IV criteria for MA-use disorder N=19 (within-subjects design) | ↑ Sustained attention ↑ Visuospatial perception | Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Johnson et al (2007) | Same as above | Intravenous: 0, 15, 30 mg | Participants met the DSM-IV criteria for MA-use disorder N=10 (within-subjects design) | ↑ Sustained attention ↑ Visuospatial perception | Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Kirkpatrick et al (2008) | Metacognition (Judgment of agency task) | Intranasal: 0, 12, 25, 50 mg/70 kg | Participants met the DSM-IV criteria for MA-use disorder N=10 (within-subjects design) | ↑ Metacognition | Repeated-dosing effects were not investigate |
Kirkpatrick et al (in press) | Immediate and long-term memory (digit-recall task); visuospatial perception (DSST); reaction time, vigilance and inhibitory control (DAT); sustained attention and inhibitory control (RIT); learning/memory (RAT) | Oral: 0, 20, 40 mg | Participants reported previous experience with MA, but did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for a MA-use disorder N=11 (within-subjects design) | ↑ Visuospatial perception ↑ Reaction time ↑ Vigilance ↑ Learning/memory ↔Immediate and long-term memory ↔Inhibitory control ↔Sustained attention | Repeated-dosing effects were not investigate |
Marrone et al (2010) | Speech (quantity, fluency); speech perception (ratings made by naïve listeners) | Oral: 0, 20, 40 mg | Participants reported previous experience with MA, but did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for a MA-use disorder N=11 (within-subjects design) | ↑ Speech ↑ Speech perception | Repeated-dosing effects were not investigate |
Mohs et al (1978) | Information processing (visual search task); Divided attention (DAT); Time estimation (Time production task) | Oral: 0, 10 mg | Participants' drug-use histories not reported N=24 (within-subjects design) | ↑ Information processing ↔ Divided attention ↔ Time estimation | Only one active dose studied Dose examined was lower than those used recreationally Route of administration used is not typically associated with abuse Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Mohs et al (1980) | Learning/memory (Sternberg's memory scanning task, Buschke's selective reminding task); Time estimation (Time production task) | Oral: 0, 10 mg | Participants' drug-use histories not reported N=10 (within-subjects design) | ↔ Learning/memory ↔ Time estimation | Only one active dose studied Dose examined was lower than those used recreationally Route of administration used is not typically associated with abuse Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Rush et al (2011) | Visuospatial perception (DSST) | Intranasal: 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 20 mg | Participants met the DSM-IV criteria for a stimulant-use disorder | ↑ Visuospatial perception | Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Sevak et al (2009) | Visuospatial perception (DSST) | Oral: 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 15 mg | All participants reported previous stimulant use, but did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for a MA-use disorder N=10 (within-subjects design) | ↔ Visuospatial perception | Doses examined were lower than those used recreationally Route of administration used is not typically associated with abuse Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Silber et al (2006) | Psychomotor function (Tracking task, TMT); working memory (Digit span forward and backward); sustained attention (Digit vigilance), simple attention (Movement estimation); visuospatial perception (DSST); Perceptual speed (Inspection time task) | Oral: 0, 0.42 mg/kg (maximum dose: approximately 30 mg) | All participants reported previous limited stimulant use, but did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for a MA-use disorder N=20 (within-subjects design) | d,l-Methamphetamine: ↑ Sustained attention ↑ Visuospatial perception ↑ Psychomotor function (Tracking task) ↔ Psychomotor function (TMT) ↔ Working memory ↔ Perceptual speed ↔ Simple attention d-methamphetamine: ↑ Sustained attention ↑ Perceptual speed ↔ Working memory ↔ Visuospatial processing (performed worse than placebo in first session and better than placebo in second) ↔ Psychomotor function ↔ Simple attention | Only one active dose studied Route of administration used is not typically associated with abuse Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Talland and Quarton (1965) | Shifting attention (Running digit span task) | Intravenous: 0, 15 mg/68 kg | Participants' drug-use histories not reported N=18 (within-subjects design) | ↔ Shifting attention | Only one active dose studied Dose examined was lower than those used recreationally Repeated-dosing effects were not investigated |
Abbreviations: DAT, divided attention task; DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition; DSST, digit-symbol substitution task; FTT, finger tapping task; LRT, logical reasoning task; MA, methamphetamine; RAT, repeated acquisition task; RIT, rapid information task; RVIPT, rapid visual information processing task; TMT, Trail making task.
Cognitive performance: ↑, MA improved performance; ↔, MA produced no effect on performance.