Altered attentional control strategies but spared executive functioning in chronic cannabis users

- Cannabis users and non-users differed in the use of top-down attentional control.
- Cannabis users did not rely on top-down attentional control when cues were valid.
- This different strategy did not result in overall performance decrements.
- Chronic cannabis users perform similarly to controls by using alternate strategies.

BackgroundCannabis use has increased rapidly in recent decades. The increase in cannabis use makes it important to understand the potential influence of chronic use on attentional control and other executive functions (EFs). Because cannabis is often used to reduce stress, and because stress can constrain attentional control and EFs, the primary goal of this study was to determine the joint effect of acute stress and chronic cannabis use on specific EFs.MethodsThirty-nine cannabis users and 40 non-users were assigned to either a stress or no stress version of the Maastricht Acute Stress Test. Participants then completed two cognitive tasks that involve EFs: (1) task switching, and (2) a novel Flexible Attentional Control Task. These two tasks provided assessments of vigilant attention, inhibitory control, top-down attentional control, and cognitive flexibility. Salivary cortisol was assessed throughout the study.ResultsReaction time indices showed an interaction between stress and cannabis use on top-down attentional control (p = 0.036, np2 = 0.059). Follow-up tests showed that cannabis users relied less on top-down attentional control than did non-users in the no stress version. Despite not relying on top-down control, the cannabis users showed no overall performance deficits on the tasks.ConclusionsChronic cannabis users performed cognitive tasks involving EFs as well as non-users while not employing cognitive control processes that are typical for such tasks. These results indicate alterations in cognitive processing in cannabis users, but such alterations do not necessarily lead to global performance deficits.