Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Addict. 2017 Jun;26(4):379–387. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12551

Table 2.

Comparative performance of prescription stimulant misusers versus controls on the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB)1

Misusers
N=100
Controls
N=197
Statistics
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
Verbal Recognition Memory (VRM)
Free recall – total correct (immediate) 7.1 ± 1.9 7.4 ± 2 beta: −0.3; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): −0.8, 0.1; p=0.16
Recognition – total correct (immediate) 23.0 ± 1.1 23.2 ± 1.1 beta: −0.2; 95% CI: −0.5, 0.1; p=0.16
Recognition – total correct (delayed) 22.7 ± 1.5 22.8 ± 1.5 beta: −0.1; 95% CI: −0.5, 0.2; p=0.44
Spatial Working Memory (SWM)2
Between errors 16.2 ± 12.9 15.4 ± 14.3 beta: 2.4; 95% CI: −0.9, 5.6; p=0.2
Between errors z score 0.9 ± 0.5 0.9 ± 0.6 beta: −0.8; 95% CI: −0.2, 0.5; p=0.2
Strategy 27.8 ± 8.3 28.8 ± 7.1 beta: −0.4; 95% CI: −2.3, 1.4; p=0.6
Strategy z score 0.8 ± 0.9 0.7 ± 1.0 beta: −0.5; 95% CI: −0.3, 0.2; p=0.7
Stockings of Cambridge (SOC)
Male
Problems solved in minimum moves 9.5 ± 1.7 10.1 ± 1.7 beta: −0.6; 95% CI: −1.3, −0.01; p=0.046ψ
Problems solved in minimum moves z score 0.7 ± 0.8 1.0 ± 0.8 beta: −0.3; 95% CI: −0.6, −0.005; p=0.046ψ
Female
Problems solved in minimum moves 9.5 ± 1.8 9.0 ± 2.0 beta: 0.5; 95% CI: −0.1, 1.1; p=0.13
Problems solved in minimum moves z score 0.7 ± 0.9 0.4 ± 1.0 beta: 0.3; 95% CI: −0.7, 0.6; p=0.13
Intra-Extra Dimensional Set Shift (IED)
Total errors (adjusted) 20.3 ± 18.1 21.7 ± 24.7 beta: 0.03; 95% CI: −5.5, 5.6; p=1.0
Total errors (adjusted) z score 0.3 ± 0.5 0.3 ± 0.7 beta: −0.0; 95% CI: −0.2, 0.2; p=1.0
Affective Go/No-Go (AGN)3
Correct latency – median – positive 502 ± 63.4 485.2 ± 58 beta: 18.7; 95% CI: 3.8, 33.6; p=0.01*
Correct latency – median – negative 503.4 ± 58.2 493.3 ± 62.8 beta: 12; 95% CI: −3.4, 27.4; p=0.13
Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP)
Response latency – median 397.2 ± 70.3 402.9 ± 94 beta: −3.6; 95% CI: −25.1, 18; p=0.7
Response latency – median z score 1.0 ± 0.7 0.9 ± 0.9 beta: 0.04; 95% CI: −0.2, 0.2; p=0.7
Male
A’4 0.89 ± 0.1 0.94± 0.05 beta: −0.05; 95% CI: −0.09, −0.01; p=0.007*
A’ z score 0.12 ± 0.9 0.37 ± 0.9 beta: −0.3; 95% CI: −0.7, −0.03; p=0.04 *
Female
A’3 0.92 ± 0.07 0.93 ± 0.05 beta: −0.005; 95% CI: −0.02, 0.01; p=0.59
A’ z score 0.24 ± 0.7 0.18 ± 0.9 beta: 0.05; 95% CI: −0.2, 0.3; p=0.7
Reaction Time (RTI)
Five-choice reaction time – median 330.7 ± 79.2 327.5 ± 46.7 beta: 6.6; 95% CI: −7.9, 21.1; p=0.4
Five-choice reaction time – median z score 0.5 ± 1.3 0.6 ± 0.8 beta: −0.1; 95% CI: −0.3, 0.1; p=0.4
Simple reaction time – median 306.8 ± 66.4 304.2 ± 50 beta: 5.1; 95% CI: −8.5, 18.7; p=0.5
Simple reaction time – median z score 0.3 ± 0.8 0.3 ± 0.6 beta: −0.6; 95% CI: −0.2, 0.1; p=0.5
Five-choice error score – all 0.1 ± 0.4 0.1 ± 0.4 beta: 0.005; 95% CI: −0.1, 0.1; p=0.9
Simple error score – all 0.2 ± 1.0 0.2 ± 0.6 beta: −0.01; 95% CI: −0.2, 0.2; p=0.9
1

One subject was dropped from the analysis due to a missing test

2

Two subjects were dropped due to scores outside of the range of normal

3

Two subjects were dropped due to scores outside of the range of normal

4

Ten subjects were dropped due to scores outside of the range of normal

ψ

p-value>0.05 when ADHD included in the model

*

p-value<0.05 when ADHD included in the model