[[missing key: loading-pdf-error]] [[missing key: loading-pdf-link]]
Abstract
Rationale
Cannabis use is widespread and has previously been associated with memory impairments. However, the role of cannabis in relation to false memory production, i.e., memories of events that were not experienced, is less well-understood.
Objective
The aim of the current field study was to examine the impact of cannabis use on false memory production.
Methods
The Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm was used to induce false memories. In this paradigm, participants study word lists that are associatively related to a non-presented word, termed the critical lure. In a later memory test, true recognition rates and false alarm rates toward critical lures and unrelated items are assessed. Memory performance was compared between three groups: regular cannabis consumers who were acutely intoxicated (n = 53), regular cannabis consumers who were sober (n = 50), and cannabis-naïve controls (n = 53). The participants were approached in Dutch coffee shops (cannabis outlets) and cafes and asked to participate in our study. After collecting general information on their cannabis use, they were subjected to the DRM procedure.
Results
Although false memory rates for critical lures did not statistically differ between groups, both intoxicated and sober cannabis consumers falsely recognized more unrelated items than control participants. Also, individuals without a history of cannabis use demonstrated higher memory accuracy compared with the intoxicated group.
Conclusion
It is concluded that cannabis intoxication and history of cannabis use induce a liberal response criterion for newly presented words for which the level of association with previously learned words is low and uncertainty is high.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
2 Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Faculty of Law, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
3 Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia