Impaired executive function in male MDMA (“ecstasy”) users
- 359 Downloads
Long-term users of ecstasy have shown impaired performance on a multitude of cognitive abilities (most notably memory, attention, executive function). Research into the pattern of MDMA effects on executive functions remains fragmented, however.
To determine more systematically what aspects of executive function are affected by a history of MDMA use, by using a model that divides executive functions into cognitive flexibility, information updating and monitoring, and inhibition of pre-potent responses.
MDMA users and controls who abstained from ecstasy and other substances for at least 2 weeks were tested with a computerized cognitive test battery to assess their abilities on tasks that measure the three submodalities of executive function, and their combined contribution on two more complex executive tasks. Because of sex-differential effects of MDMA reported in the literature, data from males and females were analyzed separately.
Male MDMA users performed significantly worse on the tasks that tap on cognitive flexibility and on the combined executive function tasks; no differences were found on the other cognitive tasks. Female users showed no impairments on any of the tasks.
The present data suggest that a history of MDMA use selectively impairs executive function. In male users, cognitive flexibility was impaired and increased perseverative behavior was observed. The inability to adjust behavior rapidly and flexibly may have repercussions for daily life activities.
KeywordsEcstasy MDMA Executive function Working memory Flexibility Inhibition Serotonin Dopamine Neurotoxity
- Bolla KI, McCann UD, Ricaurte GA (1998) Memory impairment in abstinent MDMA (“ecstasy”) users. Neurology 5:1532–1537Google Scholar
- Commins DL, Vosmer G, Virus RM, Woolverton WL, Schuster CR, Seiden LS (1986) Biochemical and histological evidence that methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA) is toxic to neurons in the rat brain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 241:338–345Google Scholar
- Crone EA, Ridderinkhof KR, Worms M, Somsen RJM, van der Molen MW (2004) Switching between spatial stimulus-response mappings: a developmental study of cognitive flexibility. Dev Sci (in press)Google Scholar
- Derogatis LR (1994) Symptom Check List-90-R: administration, scoring, and procedures manual. National Computer Systems, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
- Fox HC, Toplis AS, Turner JJD, Parrot AC (2001a) Auditory verbal learning in drug free ecstasy polydrug users. Hum Psychopharmacol 16:613–618Google Scholar
- Grant AD, Berg EA (1948) A behavioral analysis of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card sorting. J Exp Psychol 38:404–411Google Scholar
- Heaton RK, Chelune GJ, Talley JL, Kay GG, Curtiss G (1993) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Manual: revised and expanded. Psychological assessment Resources, Inc., Odessa, Fla.Google Scholar
- Milani R, Schifano F (2000) Neuropsychological problems associated with ecstasy use. J Psychopharmacol 14:14Google Scholar
- O’Shea E, Esteban B, Camarero J, Green AR, Colabo MI (2001) Effect of GBR 12909 and fluoxetine on the acute and long term changes induced by MDMA (“ecstasy”) on the 5-HT and dopamine concentrations in mouse brain. Neuropharmacology 40:65–74Google Scholar
- Ricaurte GA, McCann UD (1992) Neurotoxic amphetamine analogues: effects in monkeys and implications for humans. Ann N Y Acad Sci 371–382Google Scholar
- Ricaurte GA, McCann UD, Szabo Z, Scheffel U (2000) Toxicodynamics and long-term toxicity of the recreational drug, 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA, “ecstasy”). Toxicol Lett 112–113:143–146Google Scholar
- Ridderinkhof KR, van der Molen MW (1995) A psychophysiological analysis of developmental differences in the ability to resist interference. Child Dev 66:1040–1056Google Scholar
- Schwartz RH, Grueneweld PJ, Klitzner M, Fedio P (1989) Short term memory impairments in cannabis-dependent adolescents. Am J Disord Child 143:1214–1219Google Scholar
- Shallice T (1982) Specific impairments in planning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Series B 298:199–209Google Scholar