rethinkTHC Search
Menu
Study breakdown

Earlier Cannabis Use Was Linked to Slower Reaction Times in Adulthood Through Brain Encoding Changes

Longitudinal CohortModerate evidence
The takeaway

Adults who started cannabis earlier in adolescence had slower working memory reaction times at age 28, mediated by reduced brain activation during memory encoding, though cannabis users generally performed better than never-users.

Developmental neuroscientists, adolescent health researchers, cannabis risk communicators.

Cannabis users generally outperformed never-users on working memory, and age-of-onset brain effects appeared equally after single and repeated use.

What the researchers found

Earlier cannabis age of onset was associated with longer reaction times and reduced posterior parietal cortex activation during encoding, which mediated the age-of-onset effect. However, age-of-onset associations did not differ between single-use and repeated-use groups. Greater total cannabis use was associated with increased DLPFC activation during maintenance. Surprisingly, cannabis users generally performed better than never-users.

Why it matters

This study provides a nuanced picture: while earlier cannabis onset affects brain activation patterns during memory encoding, the finding that even single use showed the same pattern as repeated use suggests these differences may reflect pre-existing risk factors rather than cannabis-caused damage.

The numbers in context

75 adults at age 28 (60 with reported use, 15 no use). Earlier onset linked to slower RT and reduced PPC encoding activation. Greater total use linked to increased DLPFC maintenance activation. Cannabis users outperformed never-users on accuracy and speed.

How the study worked

75 adults with longitudinal cannabis use assessments and prenatal drug exposure data completed a spatial working memory task during fMRI at age 28. All passed same-day drug screens. Fast event-related design separated encoding, maintenance, and retrieval phases.

What this study cannot tell us

Small never-user group (n=15). Cannot fully separate cannabis effects from pre-existing risk factors. Prenatal drug exposure in many participants adds complexity. Cross-sectional brain imaging cannot establish causation.

How to read the evidence

Moderate - longitudinal assessments with objective brain imaging at age 28, but small never-user group and complex confounding factors.

When this study was published

Published in 2018.

The bigger picture

The finding that cannabis users performed better than never-users, and that single and repeated use showed the same age-of-onset patterns, challenges simple narratives about cannabis "damaging" the brain. The reality appears more complex, involving pre-existing differences in neurocognitive systems.

Questions still open

  • Do the brain activation differences represent compensation or vulnerability? Why did cannabis users outperform never-users? Could the age-of-onset effect reflect earlier-maturing individuals who both use cannabis earlier and differ neurologically?

Common questions

Does early cannabis use damage the brain permanently?
This study found brain activation differences in adults who started cannabis early, but the same pattern appeared after just one use, suggesting the differences may reflect pre-existing risk factors rather than cannabis-induced damage. Cannabis users actually outperformed never-users on the memory task.
Does cannabis affect working memory?
This study found subtle changes in brain activation patterns during working memory in adults who used cannabis, but these did not translate to worse performance. In fact, cannabis users were faster and more accurate than never-users at age 28.

Read the original research

Adolescent cannabis use and brain systems supporting adult working memory encoding, maintenance, and retrieval.

NeuroImage, 169, 496-509

Citation

Tervo-Clemmens, Brenden; Simmonds, Daniel; Calabro, Finnegan J; Day, Nancy L; Richardson, Gale A; Luna, Beatriz. (2018). Adolescent cannabis use and brain systems supporting adult working memory encoding, maintenance, and retrieval.. NeuroImage, 169, 496-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.041

Explore the wider topic