Abstract
Rationale
For decades, cannabis has been the most widely used illicit substance in the world, particularly among youth. Research suggests that mental health problems associated with cannabis use may result from its effect on reward brain circuit, emotional processes, and cognition. However, findings are mostly derived from correlational studies and inconsistent, particularly in adolescents.
Objectives and Methods
Using data from the IMAGEN study, participants (non-users, persistent users, abstinent users) were classified according to their cannabis use at 19 and 22 years-old. All participants were cannabis-naïve at baseline (14 years-old). Psychopathological symptoms, cognitive performance, and brain activity while performing a Monetary Incentive Delay task were used as predictors of substance use and to analyze group differences over time.
Results
Higher scores on conduct problems and lower on peer problems at 14 years-old (n = 318) predicted a greater likelihood of transitioning to cannabis use within 5 years. At 19 years of age, individuals who consistently engaged in low-frequency (i.e., light) cannabis use (n = 57) exhibited greater conduct problems and hyperactivity/inattention symptoms compared to non-users (n = 52) but did not differ in emotional symptoms, cognitive functioning, or brain activity during the MID task. At 22 years, those who used cannabis at both 19 and 22 years-old n = 17), but not individuals that had been abstinent for ≥ 1 month (n = 19), reported higher conduct problems than non-users (n = 17).
Conclusions
Impairments in reward-related brain activity and cognitive functioning do not appear to precede or succeed cannabis use (i.e., weekly, or monthly use). Cannabis-naïve adolescents with conduct problems and more socially engaged with their peers may be at a greater risk for lighter yet persistent cannabis use in the future.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Preliminary results of the current work were presented as a poster at the 2022 European Society of Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Conference.
Cannabis exerts its effects in humans mainly through actions from its main psychoactive compound – THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) – on CB1 cannabinoid receptors (Prus 2018). The endocannabinoid system, namely brain areas with the densest CB1 cannabinoid binding (e.g., basal ganglia, cerebral cortex, and striatum), appears to be involved and affect several cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and physiological processes, including reward processing (Covey et al. 2015; Fernández-Ruiz et al. 2000; Herkenham et al. 1990; Meyer et al. 2018; Pertwee 1997; Prus 2018). Investigating the effects of cannabis on the brain’s reward circuit can provide insights into its potentially addictive properties, since this circuit is broadly affected by both natural and artificial reinforcers, including drugs of abuse.
Studies using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) have employed the Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) task to investigate gain anticipation and feedback processing (Knutson et al. 2000). Gain anticipation is expected to increase activity in the ventral striatum (VS) – particularly the nucleus accumbens (NAc) (Balodis and Potenza 2015; Knutson et al. 2000), while feedback-reward processing (i.e., gains) seem to elicit greater activation in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) (Knutson and Greer 2008). Therefore, the MID task allows us to investigate how brain circuits operate to evaluate rewarding stimuli (Haber and Knutson 2010), providing a neural account of the subjective value of rewards and the cues predicting them. Nonetheless, chronic effects of cannabis during reward anticipation remain unclear. There are studies reporting no differences between individuals who use cannabis and controls (Enzi et al. 2015; Jager et al. 2013; Karoly et al. 2015; Nestor et al. 2020; Skumlien et al. 2022; Tong et al. 2020; Yip et al. 2014), while others report increased activity in the VS and cerebellum (Nestor et al. 2010), and others decreased activity in PFC and/or striatal areas (Spechler et al. 2020; van Hell et al. 2010). Fewer studies have investigated reward feedback in individuals who use cannabis, but findings are also inconsistent. Both increased (Skumlien et al. 2022; van Hell et al. 2010) and decreased (Nestor et al. 2010; van Hell et al. 2010; Yip et al. 2014) activity in PFC, limbic, and sensorimotor regions are reported, as well as non-significant results (Filbey and Yezhuvath 2013; Jager et al. 2013; Skumlien et al. 2022; Tong et al. 2020; Yip et al. 2014). Since these findings come from cross-sectional investigations it is still necessary to assess if group differences originate from the: (a) neurotoxic effects of cannabis, and/or (b) preexisting individual differences, namely in the reward system, psychopathological symptoms, and/or cognitive functioning (Skumlien et al. 2021).
Longitudinal studies using the MID task (Cope et al. 2019; Martz et al. 2016, 2018, 2021) have reported mixed findings during reward anticipation: decreased NAc activity over time in individuals who use cannabis (Martz et al. 2016); non-significant predictive effects or higher VS activation with greater cannabis use (Martz et al. 2018, 2021). However, these participants had already initiated cannabis use, making it impossible to distinguish between the neurotoxic effects of cannabis and preexisting individual differences in the reward system. More longitudinal studies are needed to follow participants from before to after the onset of cannabis use, which usually begins during adolescence – an important neurodevelopment period (Ellingson et al. 2021; Meyer et al. 2018; Stringfield and Torregrossa 2021). The ongoing changes in adolescents’ brain systems can lead to increased risk-taking and reward-seeking, making them more vulnerable to hazardous behaviors, such as drug misuse (Steinberg 2008). The endocannabinoid system has a crucial role in regulating brain development and can produce long-lasting functional changes in synaptic processes (Fernández-Ruiz et al. 2000; Lupica et al. 2004); thus, exogenous cannabinoids may disrupt the developmental processes (Rubino and Parolaro 2016).
The relationship between cognitive impairments—which are closely interrelated with brain functioning—and cannabis use is also subject of ongoing debate, particularly concerning its potential for predicting cannabis use initiation versus it being a consequence of cannabis consumption. Preexisting cognitive impairments may predict cannabis use onset, for example, poor executive functioning in childhood seems to be associated with cannabis use later in life (Cavalli and Cservenka 2020; Squeglia et al. 2014). Alternatively, it is well established in the literature that cannabis use acutely affects cognition, namely verbal learning, memory, executive functioning, cognitive flexibility, attention, and working memory (Broyd et al. 2016; Dellazizzo et al. 2022; Duperrouzel et al. 2020; Gonzalez et al. 2017). However, its long-term effects remain unclear (Dellazizzo et al. 2022). Meta analyses provide evidence for both cognitive recovery within a month of abstinence (Duperrouzel et al. 2020) and persisting effects (Broyd et al. 2016). Yet, cognitive recovery after sustained abstinence is found in adolescents (Lorenzetti et al. 2016) with effects being limited to a few days after use (Ellingson et al. 2021; Lorenzetti et al. 2016).
Finally, psychological, neurocognitive and brain changes during adolescence may play a causal or modulatory role in psychopathology (Schumann et al. 2010). Indeed, the endocannabinoid system is implicated in stress and anxiety regulation, particularly through its actions on corticolimbic structures. The changes these regions undergo during development put adolescents at increased risk for emotional and anxiety disorders (Meyer et al. 2018). The literature suggests that externalizing problems (i.e., when maladjustment is expressed mostly outward, e.g., conduct problems) likely precede cannabis use (e.g., Blair 2020; Farmer et al. 2015; Griffith-Lendering et al. 2011; Oshri et al. 2011), whereas associations with internalizing symptoms (i.e., when maladjustment is expressed mostly inward, e.g., emotional symptoms) have been weaker and more inconsistent (Griffith-Lendering et al. 2011).
Overall, further investigations employing longitudinal designs are necessary to address inconsistent findings. Variations in cannabis use patterns likely influence these discrepant results. Indeed, it is expected that light/occasional (i.e., weekly, or monthly) and heavy (i.e., daily, or near-daily) use during adolescence could lead to disparate outcomes later in life. Most adolescents engage in infrequent cannabis use, with non-disordered cannabis use being four times more prevalent than instances of Cannabis Use Disorder (Degenhardt et al. 2010; Sultan et al. 2023). As such, it is important to examine the neurocognitive and psychological outcomes among adolescents who escalate to heavier cannabis consumption as well as those who do not. For this purpose, we used archival data from a large longitudinal cohort, the IMAGEN study (Schumann et al. 2010). IMAGEN’s participants who used cannabis were mostly characterized by a low-to-moderate frequency of cannabis use (the percentage of participants reporting heavy use ranged from 22.8%—28.1%). This data was analyzed in an attempt to provide evidence regarding the following questions: (Q1) Do preexisting differences in reward-related brain activity, psychopathology, and cognitive functioning predict cannabis use initiation?; (Q2) Can cannabis use lead to impairments in these levels of functioning?; (Q2.1) If it does, do the disrupted levels of functioning recover with abstinence?
Given the current state of the literature, it is clearly challenging to establish robust hypotheses. Consequently, we adopted mainly an exploratory approach; although we anticipated that: (H1) externalizing psychopathology precedes cannabis use and (H2) cannabis-related cognitive impairments, if present, are expected to subside after a ≥ 1-month period of abstinence.
Methods and materials
Participants
IMAGEN sampling procedures
At baseline, 2341 adolescents (Mage = 14.33, SDage = 0.89; 48.4% female) were recruited at 8 sites in England, Ireland, France, and Germany. At each site, local ethics committees approved the protocol, and participants and legal guardians provided written informed consent. Participants completed a comprehensive test battery when they were, on average, 14 (baseline; BL), 19 (Follow-Up 1; FU1), and 22 years-old (Follow-Up 2; FU2). They were asked to abstain from caffeine, alcohol, and other drugs 24 h prior to testing. For further details on recruitment, assessment procedures, and IMAGEN’s exclusion criteria see Schumann et al. (2010).
Current sample
For inclusion in the current work participants had to report no (or low risk) alcohol use and nicotine dependence at BL. Exclusion criteria at BL also included: (a) having used a specific illicit substance > 2 times in their lifetime; (b) reporting > 8 total uses of illicit substances in their lifetime; and (c) reporting the use of “relevin” (i.e., fictitious substance). A total of 1946 drug-naïve participants (Mage = 14.39 years, SDage = 0.40; 51.2% female) were eligible for inclusion at BL. The control group (i.e., CON) was defined as the participants that maintained these criteria throughout all timepoints, resulting in 326 non-users (67.8% female).
At FU1, individuals who used cannabis reported using cannabis ≥ 6 times in the previous year and ≥ 1 time in the previous month. Cannabis was required to be the main substance they used during their lifetime. Participants with a possible alcohol dependency were excluded. At FU1, we identified 164 individuals who used cannabis (i.e., CAN group; 31.1% female).
From these, 57 (22.8% female) still used cannabis at FU2, while 19 (36.8% female) were cannabis abstinent for ≥ 1 months (i.e., ABS group). Inclusion criteria for the ABS group were: (a) being classified as CAN at FU1; (b) having used cannabis ≥ 20 times in their lifetime (cannabis being the main substance they used); and (c) not having used cannabis in the previous month.
Questionnaires
At all timepoints (cf. Fig. 1 and Supplementary Materials), participants completed the following measures (a) substance use: the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD; Hibell et al. 2012), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders et al. 1993), the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND; Heatherton et al. 1991); (b) psychopathology: the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman 1997); and (c) cognition: the block design, matrix reasoning, similarity, vocabulary, and digit span subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV at BL) and for Adults (WAIS-IV at FU2) (Grizzle 2011; Wechsler 2008). Finally, to match participants on pubertal development and socioeconomic status (BL), the Puberty Development Scale (PDS; Petersen et al. 1988) and a scale assessing family stresses (Goodman et al. 2000) were administered.
Experimental task
At all timepoints, participants completed a modified version of the MID task (11 min at BL and 7 min at FU) with a 3-min practice block outside the fMRI scanner (Fig. 2). At the beginning of each trial, participants see a cue, which is followed by a target. They must respond as quickly as possible to targets by pressing a button. A successful trial (i.e., hit) occurs when the participant responds while the target is on the screen. Three types of cues inform the participants about the possibility of winning 2, 10, or no points (each condition was presented a third of the total trials). About 1.5 s after reacting, participants receive feedback on their performance (hit or missed). A jittered intertrial interval was used (3400–4150 ms). A tracking algorithm ensured that all participants had a success rate of ~ 66% by adapting the duration of the target throughout the task (between 100–300 ms). To enhance motivation, participants were informed that they would receive a sweet for every 5 points.
fMRI data acquisition and processing
fMRI data acquisition and processing follow IMAGEN’s procedures (Schumann et al. 2010; Supplementary Materials). For quality control purposes we retrieved the head motion parameters of each participant. Participants with a mean framewise displacement > 0.5 mm were excluded (Power et al. 2012).
We focused on brain responses during gain anticipation (of both large and small gains) and reward feedback for successful (hits) and unsuccessful (missed) trials, separately. This resulted in four contrasts: gain anticipation > neutral (hit and missed trials separately); hit feedback on gain trial > feedback on neutral trial; missed feedback on gain trial > feedback on neutral trial. We used the WFU PickAtlas tool (52; https://www.nitrc.org/projects/wfu_pickatlas/) to create the masks for the Regions of Interest (ROI) analyses. For the anticipation phase we created a mask with the right and left NAc, and for the feedback phase we included prefrontal areas (i.e., bilateral: middle frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus in the orbitofrontal cortex, medial part of the superior frontal gyrus, supplementary motor area, anterior cingulate gyrus) (Fig. 3).
Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 28 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and SPM12 (MATLAB R2022b toolbox).
Propensity Score Matching was performed to balance group sizes and match participants on baseline age, sex, pubertal development, language, and socioeconomic status.
To address if baseline (14 years) characteristics predict cannabis use at 19 years (Q1), the 164 participants that engaged in cannabis use at 19 years (CAN) and matched non-users (CON) were included in four logistic regression analyses. Firstly, we extracted standardized beta-weights, representative of the mean BOLD response within the ROIs, and included them in two regression models as predictors: NAc activation during reward anticipation (2 predictors: missed and hit trials) and PFC activation during feedback processing (2 predictors: missed and hit trials). Then, each WISC-IV subtest score and the SDQ subscales’ scores (introduced in three blocks: 1st, conduct problems and hyperactivity/inattention symptoms, i.e., externalizing psychopathology; 2nd, emotional symptoms, i.e., internalizing psychopathology; and 3rd, peer problems and prosocial behavior) were included in two other logistic regressions.
To address differences between CAN and CON (Q2), a subsample of 57 persistent CAN and their matched CON were compared on SDQ and WISC/WAIS scores. We conducted repeated measures ANOVAs with Time (BL, FU1, FU2) and Group (persistent CAN, CON) and their interaction as factors, in separate models for each SDQ subscale and each WISC/WAIS subtest. Considering our goal of assessing group differences over time, we only focused on the pairwise comparisons of the Time*Group interaction factor. Similarly, using SPM’s full factorial design, we defined four models with two factors (Group and Time) to compare brain activity in the contrasts of interest.
Finally, on the measures in which significant group differences were found, repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted on a subsample of 19 individuals who used cannabis at 19 years but were abstinent at 22 years (ABS), their matched persistent CAN, and CON to assess potential recovery with abstinence (Q2.1).
To correct for multiple comparisons in self-report and neuropsychological indicators, the statistical significance threshold was determined using the two-stage False Discovery Rate (FDR) proposed by Benjamini et al. (2006) (max. = 0.05). The threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.014 (FDR-corrected p-values available in Supplementary Materials) (Pike 2011). Regarding neuroimaging data, a FWE-corrected threshold (pFEW < 0.05) and a cluster-extended threshold of 20 voxels were defined for identifying statistically significant differences in BOLD responses. The models were run for whole-brain and ROI analyses.
Effect sizes were calculated using Cohens’ d, eta squared (η2), and Cramer’s V for the t-tests, ANOVAs, and chi-square tests, respectively.
Results
Full reports of the statistical analyses and missing data are available in the Supplementary Materials.
Q1: Baseline predictors of cannabis use initiation at age 19
Propensity Score Matching and group characteristics
The 164 participants (Mage = 14.34, SDage = 0.40) who started to use cannabis at age 19 (i.e., CAN group) were successfully matched to 154 CON (Mage = 14.31, SDage = 0.40) at baseline. Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and group comparisons.Footnote 1
Binary logistic regressions
NAc activation during the anticipation phase.1
The model was non-significant, χ2(2) = 0.70, p = 0.705.
PFC activation during the feedback phase.1
The model was non-significant, χ2(2) = 2.66, p = 0.264.
Cognitive functions
The model was non-significant, χ2(5) = 8.79, p = 0.118.
Psychopathology
A statistically significant model, χ2(5) = 26.71, p < 0.001, explained 10.7% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance of CAN membership, and correctly classified 61.9% of the cases. Specifically, higher conduct problems scores (OR = 1.35, p = 0.001) and lower peer problems scores (OR = 0.75, p < 0.001) at 14 years were associated with a greater likelihood of using cannabis at 19 years.
Q2: Comparing participants who use cannabis and non-users
Propensity score matching analyses and group characteristics
The 57 persistent CAN at age 22 (Mage = 14.29, SDage = 0.39) were successfully matched to 52 CON (M age = 14.34, SDage = 0.42) on their baseline characteristics.
Repeated-Measures ANOVAs
fMRI
For both whole-brain and ROI analyses (NAc and PFC) no clusters yielded significant effects of group or group*time interaction (for neither missed nor hit conditions, all pFWE > 0.05).Footnote 2
Cognitive functions
There were no statistically significant effects of group, or group*time interaction (all p > 0.06).
Psychopathology
We found statistically significant between-subjects effects for conduct problems, F(1, 106) = 13.27, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.11, and hyperactivity/inattention, F(1, 106) = 9.04, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.08. The persistent CAN group had higher scores on the conduct problems scale at 14 (p < 0.001) and 19 (p = 0.012) years-old; also, higher hyperactivity/inattention scores at 19 years-old (p = 0.008) (Fig. 3).
Q.2.1: Recovery with at least one month of abstinence
Propensity score matching and group characteristics
Nineteen ABS at 22 years (Mage = 14.34, SDage = 0.48; 36.8% female) were successfully matched to 17 CON (Mage = 14.31, SDage = 0.40), and 17 persistent CAN (Mage = 14.37, SDage = 0.44) on their baseline characteristics. Nine ABS (47.4%) had not used cannabis for over a year and none in the previous month.
Repeated-measures ANOVAs
Psychopathology
The persistent CAN subgroup reported higher conduct problems scores (M = 1.06, SD = 0.25) than CON (M = 0.94, SD = 0.25) at 22 years (p = 0.009), F(1, 50) = 4.11, p = 0.022, η2 = 0.14. ABS did not differ from persistent CAN (all p > 0.05) nor CON (all p > 0.07). No group differences were found for hyperactivity/inattention symptoms (p = 0.246) (Fig. 4).
Discussion
The goal of the current work was to explore differences between people who used cannabis and non-users in reward-related brain activity, psychopathology, and cognitive functioning before and after cannabis use onset. For this purpose, we used archival data of adolescent participants from the IMAGEN longitudinal cohort-study (Schumann et al. 2010). Most CAN participants reported light cannabis use. Studying the effects of such levels of use in the adolescent brain is of paramount importance given that most adolescents who use cannabis do it infrequently and few investigations have examined the long-term outcomes associated with occasional use (Degenhardt et al. 2010; Sultan et al. 2023). For instance, according to the 2019 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs, 88.32% of teenagers who reported using cannabis in the previous month described non-daily use (for more information see: http://espad.org/).
Regarding preexisting differences, results partially support H1, which posited that externalizing psychopathology would precede cannabis use and be more prevalent in the CAN group. Scoring higher on conduct problems and lower on peer problems was associated with a greater likelihood of belonging to the CAN group. Neither internalizing psychopathological dimensions (i.e., emotional symptoms), cognitive functioning, NAc, nor PFC activity in the MID task predicted future cannabis use.
Similarly, after cannabis use initiation, light CAN and CON did not differ in internalizing psychopathology, cognitive functioning, or brain activity (Q2). However, the CAN group scored higher on conduct problems and hyperactivity and inattention symptoms at 19 years. Moreover, at 22 years, persistent CAN, but not ABS, exhibited significantly higher conduct problems than CON (Q2.1). Due to the absence of significant differences in cognitive functioning and brain activity, we did not test the hypothesis concerning recovery with abstinence (H2). Next, we will discuss the main findings.
Reward processing
In a sample of 318 cannabis-naïve 14-year-olds, neither NAc (reward anticipation) nor PFC activity (feedback processing) predicted cannabis use at 19 years-old. This suggests the absence of preexisting differences in the reward-related brain activity of adolescent who will use cannabis in the future.Footnote 3 Importantly, the current sample was mostly characterized by a low-to-moderate pattern of cannabis use, and previous works reporting similar frequencies of use (e.g., Skumlien et al. 2022) have concluded that such levels of cannabis use are probably not associated with disruptions in reward-related brain activity.
We also found no differences in BOLD responses in the assessed brain structures in individuals who still occasionally used cannabis at 22 years. In line with our results, previous cross-sectional studies found no group differences in whole-brain analysis, and/or NAc activity during reward anticipation, and/or PFC activity during reward feedback (e.g., Filbey et al. 2013; Jager et al. 2013; Karoly et al. 2015; Nestor et al. 2020; Skumlien et al. 2022; Yip et al. 2014). It should be noted, however, that the MID task version we used did not include a loss condition. Some of the studies that did not find group differences in brain activity during gain-related feedback found them for loss-related feedback (Filbey et al. 2013; Yip et al. 2014).
Regarding longitudinal designs, one study (Martz et al. 2016) in a young sample indicated that long-term disruptions in neural circuits associated with reward anticipation, namely blunted NAc activity at a 2 year and a 4 year follow up, may be induced by cannabis use rather than a risk factor for cannabis use initiation. In this study, the findings—that differ from ours—may indicate that the sample was more susceptible to cannabis-induced sequels in reward-related regions because the participants were considered high-risk and already had a history of cannabis use at baseline. Indeed, genetics and epigenetics can play a critical (and complex) role in cannabis use (Dennen et al. 2022). Some potential explanations are: (a) genetic predisposition for higher reward processing in high-risk samples; (b) neural changes prompted by adverse life experiences endured by children with parents with history of substance abuse; (c) an interaction between both heritable and environmental factors; or (d) cannabis use may be a coping mechanism to deal with negative emotionality, which will then be exacerbated by the effects of cannabis on the dopaminergic reward system (Martz et al. 2016). The current study provides some insights on this latter point by showing that internalizing symptoms, specifically emotional symptoms, did not explain the onset of cannabis use.
Cognitive functioning
We did not find evidence of cognitive impairment in light CAN neither before nor after cannabis use onset. Indeed, it is suggested that despite the broad association that may exist between adolescent cannabis use and neurocognitive impairment, these effects appear to be minor and may not be clinically significant (e.g., Ellingson et al. 2021; Lorenzetti et al. 2016).
Nonetheless, some variables may moderate these findings. A greater representation of light CAN may be one of these variables, since a previous IMAGEN study (Wendel et al. 2021) also found no longitudinal effects of cannabis on attention, working memory, and short-term memory from 14 to 19 years old. There were also no baseline differences between future CAN and CON. Conversely, another longitudinal study (7 to 45 years-old) observed that long-term cannabis use was associated with cognitive deficits only in midlife and in a dose-dependent manner; such that people who used cannabis heavily showed greater decline later in life (Meier et al. 2022). This raises the possibility that cognitive impairments in the heavier users may come through later stages of development and not during the age ranges we assessed.
Overall, future longitudinal studies should oversample participants with higher frequency of cannabis use and follow them through midlife to re-evaluate this pattern of findings.
Psychopathology
Externalizing problems predicted future cannabis use. Specifically, conduct problems in 14-year-old drug-naïve adolescents predicted a greater likelihood of transitioning to cannabis use within five years. This is consistent with previous works (e.g., Blair 2020; Farmer et al. 2015; Griffith-Lendering et al. 2011; Oshri et al. 2011) and supports the idea that conduct problems may be a gateway to substance use. Interestingly, having peer problems negatively predicted the CAN status at 19 years. This seems to suggest that, under certain circumstances, being more sociable and better integrated with peers may increase the likelihood of becoming a CAN. This may be particularly true when it comes to exposure to peers with conduct problems (Van Ryzin et al. 2012). Social context is a critical aspect for substance use, particularly during adolescence, when peers exert a socializing influence and peer pressure, namely on individual substance use (Andrews et al. 2002). Alternatively, adolescents may bond more strongly with peers with whom they best identify with and that already share similar interest in substance use (Andrews et al. 2002). Curiously, previous research has also found that supportive peer relationships were associated with a higher risk for cannabis use and psychopathological symptoms among adolescents with lower family support (Moore et al. 2018). These dimensions may help to identify high-risk users in cannabis use prevention programs.
Notwithstanding the overall decline in conduct problems with age, the persistent CAN group exhibited more enduring conduct problems than CON at age 22. Regarding participants who used cannabis at 19 years but were abstinent at 22 years-old, they did not differ from persistent CAN nor CON. Indeed, the literature suggests that, for most individuals, displays of problematic behavior during adolescence do not become chronic (Monahan et al. 2014). Cannabis use may be a teenagers’ way of proclaiming their self-determination, feeling more mature, or even fit in their peer group (Monahan et al. 2014). As they enter young adulthood and these social forces lose their influence, they abstain from cannabis use. As reported in the Supplementary Material, the ABS group already reported a smaller frequency of cannabis use at 19 years compared to the future persistent CAN, further supporting the possibility that lower levels of conduct problems may be associated with short-term, less frequent cannabis use, whereas chronic cannabis use may arise in teenagers with increased conduct problems. However, it is relevant to note that, in the current sample, conduct problems’ scores were relatively small, even in the persistent CAN group. Future research examining the distinct developmental pathways of cannabis users with a wider range of conduct problems’ severity are needed to support this assumption and inform preventive measures.
Hyperactivity and inattention symptoms at 14 years did not predict future cannabis use, but the CAN group at 19 years had higher symptoms than CON. Previous cross-sectional studies have already described this association (e.g., Petker et al. 2020). Our results suggest that, in community samples of adolescents (for clinical samples see Francisco et al. 2023), cannabis use may lead to hyperactivity and inattention symptoms, and not the other way around. Unlike conduct problems, these symptoms do not appear to be a strong risk factor for cannabis use, probably lacking clinical significance and subsiding with time in adolescents who engage in low-frequency cannabis use. However, it should be noted that the presence of such symptoms during adolescence may affect educational outcomes. Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that adolescents who use cannabis are less likely to complete high school than non-users, which can influence future income, occupation, and life chances (Lorenzetti et al. 2020).
Finally, the lack of differences regarding internalizing symptoms (specifically emotional symptoms) is not surprising as previous works have reported both weak associations with cannabis use and no evidence of them representing risk factors for cannabis use during adolescence or early adulthood (Farmer et al. 2015; Griffith-Lendering et al. 2011). Overall, the current results support the notion that cannabis use is more reliably associated with externalizing psychopathology than to internalizing psychopathology.
Limitations and future directions
Some limitations of the current work must be noted. First, although our study's sample size exceeds that of many other studies, a larger sample would have been ideal for more robust statistical analysis and generalization of findings. It is possible that our group comparisons are underpowered, thus replication studies will be essential to confirm our findings. This is particularly true for the assessment of cognitive functions, given that there were only two moments of assessment (14 and 22 years) and many participants did not complete the subtests at both timepoints. Additionally, some relevant cognitive domains were not specifically assessed. Consequently, these results should be interpreted with particular caution and not generalized to other cognitive domains. Second, due to the exploratory nature of the current study we decided to report pairwise comparisons even in the absence of a significant main effect of Time*Group interaction. As such, more longitudinal studies are crucial to corroborate the current results. Third, the CAN group in this study reported a relatively low frequency of use; only 22.8% and 28.1% of CAN reported daily or near daily use at 19 and 22 years, respectively. Having a greater representation of heavy CAN would increase the generalization of findings, even though the cannabis use patterns of our sample are comparable to those of previous works that have also found no group differences in reward-related brain activity (e.g., Karoly et al. 2015; Skumlien et al. 2022). Thus, the current findings may only reflect the effects experienced by low frequency CAN and not heavy users or individuals with Cannabis Use Disorder. Finally, when considering the association between conduct problems and cannabis in this sample, one cannot disregard the influence of the illegal status of the substance in the participants’ countries. Even if conduct problems precede cannabis use, the maintenance of these problems for as long as people use is inevitable given that only people who risk illegal behavior can access cannabis.
Conclusion
The current study’s design allowed an examination of potential preexisting differences in brain activity, cognitive functioning, and psychological symptoms in a developmental sample of adolescents who would engage in light cannabis use in the future. We found no evidence of preexisting individual differences in reward processing or specific cognitive domains. However, cannabis-naïve adolescents with conduct problems and who were more socially engaged with their peers seem to be at a higher risk of taking part in persistent cannabis use in the future. Additionally, using cannabis during adolescence may result in the development of hyperactivity and inattention symptoms.
Notes
We performed exploratory analyses to compare baseline brain activity of adolescents that would consume cannabis daily (or near-daily; i.e., ≥ 20 uses in the previous month) in the future with their matched controls. Independent samples t-test revealed no statistically significant group differences (see Table S4 in the Supplementary Material).
As requested by the reviewers, specific ROI analyses were further conducted on smaller structures, namely the ventromedial PFC and the orbitofrontal cortex. No clusters yielded significant effects of group or group*time interaction (pFWE > .05).
See, in the Supplementary Material, exploratory analyses with only the heavy CAN and their matched CON. No statistically significant differences were found.
References
Andrews JA, Tildesley E, Hops H, Li F (2002) The influence of peers on young adult substance use. Health Psychol 21(4):349–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.21.4.349
Balodis IM, Potenza MN (2015) Anticipatory reward processing in addicted populations: A focus on the monetary incentive delay task. Biol Psychiat 77(5):434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.08.020
Benjamini Y, Krieger AM, Yekutieli D (2006) Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika 93(3):491–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/93.3.491
Blair RJ (2020) Modeling the Comorbidity of Cannabis Abuse and Conduct Disorder/Conduct Problems from a Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective. J Dual Diagn 16(1):3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2019.1668099
Broyd SJ, van Hell HH, Beale C, Yücel M, Solowij N (2016) Acute and Chronic Effects of Cannabinoids on Human Cognition-A Systematic Review. Biol Psychiat 79(7):557–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.12.002
Cavalli JM, Cservenka A (2020) Emotion Dysregulation Moderates the Association Between Stress and Problematic Cannabis Use. Front Psych 11:597789. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.597789
Cope LM, Martz ME, Hardee JE, Zucker RA, Heitzeg MM (2019) Reward activation in childhood predicts adolescent substance use initiation in a high-risk sample. Drug Alcohol Depend 194:318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.11.003
Covey DP, Wenzel JM, Cheer JF (2015) Cannabinoid modulation of drug reward and the implications of marijuana legalization. Brain Res 1628:233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.11.034
Degenhardt L, Coffey C, Carlin JB, Swift W, Moore E, Patton GC (2010) Outcomes of occasional cannabis use in adolescence: 10-year follow-up study in Victoria Australia. British J Psych 196(4):290–295. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.108.056952
Dellazizzo L, Potvin S, Giguère S, Dumais A (2022) Evidence on the acute and residual neurocognitive effects of cannabis use in adolescents and adults: A systematic meta-review of meta-analyses. Addiction (Abingdon, England). https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15764
Dennen CA, Blum K, Bowirrat A, Khalsa J, Thanos PK, Baron D, Badgaiyan RD, Gupta A, Braverman ER, Gold MS (2022) Neurogenetic and Epigenetic Aspects of Cannabinoids. Epigenomes 6(3):27. https://doi.org/10.3390/epigenomes6030027
Duperrouzel JC, Granja K, Pacheco-Colón I, Gonzalez R (2020) Adverse Effects of Cannabis Use on Neurocognitive Functioning: A Systematic Review of Meta- Analytic Studies. J Dual Diagn 16(1):43–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2019.1626030
Ellingson JM, Hinckley JD, Ross JM, Schacht JP, Bidwell LC, Bryan AD, Hopfer CJ, Riggs P, Hutchison KE (2021) The Neurocognitive Effects of Cannabis Across the Lifespan. Curr Behav Neurosci Rep 8(4):124–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40473-021-00244-7
Enzi B, Lissek S, Edel M-A, Tegenthoff M, Nicolas V, Scherbaum N, Juckel G, Roser P (2015) Alterations of monetary reward and punishment processing in chronic cannabis users: An FMRI study. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0119150. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119150
Farmer RF, Seeley JR, Kosty DB, Gau JM, Duncan SC, Lynskey MT, Lewinsohn PM (2015) Internalizing and externalizing psychopathology as predictors of cannabis use disorder onset during adolescence and early adulthood. Psychol Addict Behav 29(3):541–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000059
Fernández-Ruiz J, Berrendero F, Hernández ML, Ramos JA (2000) The endogenous cannabinoid system and brain development. Trends Neurosci 23(1):14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(99)01491-5
Filbey FM, Dunlop J, Myers US (2013) Neural Effects of Positive and Negative Incentives during Marijuana Withdrawal. PLoS ONE 8(5):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061470
Filbey F, Yezhuvath U (2013) Functional connectivity in inhibitory control networks and severity of cannabis use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 39(6):382–391. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2013.841710
Francisco AP, Lethbridge G, Patterson B, Goldman Bergmann C, Van Ameringen M (2023) Cannabis use in Attention – Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A scoping review. J Psychiatr Res 157:239–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.11.029
Gonzalez R, Pacheco-Colón I, Duperrouzel JC, Hawes SW (2017) Does Cannabis Use Cause Declines in Neuropsychological Functioning? A Review of Longitudinal Studies. J Intl Neuropsychol Soc JINS 23(9–10):893–902. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617717000789
Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 38(5):581–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x
Goodman R, Ford T, Richards H, Gatward R, Meltzer H (2000) The Development and Well-Being Assessment: Description and initial validation of an integrated assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 41(5):645–655
Griffith-Lendering MFH, Huijbregts SCJ, Mooijaart A, Vollebergh WAM, Swaab H (2011) Cannabis use and development of externalizing and internalizing behaviour problems in early adolescence: A TRAILS study. Drug Alcohol Depend 116(1):11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.11.024
Grizzle R (2011) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development (pp. 1553–1555). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_3066
Haber SN, Knutson B (2010) The Reward Circuit: Linking Primate Anatomy and Human Imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology 35(1):4–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.129
Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerström KO (1991) The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: A revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 86(9):1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x
Herkenham M, Lynn AB, Little MD, Johnson MR, Melvin LS, de Costa BR, Rice KC (1990) Cannabinoid receptor localization in brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87(5):1932–1936
Hibell B, Guttormsson U, Ahlström S, Balakireva O, Bjarnason T, Kokkevi A, Kraus L (2012) The 2011 ESPAD report—Substance use among students in 36 European Countries. In European School Surv Proj Alcohol Drugs
Jager G, Block RI, Luijten M, Ramsey NF (2013) Tentative evidence for striatal hyperactivity in adolescent cannabis-using boys: A cross-sectional multicenter fMRI study. J Psychoactive Drugs 45(2):156–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2013.785837
Karoly HC, Bryan AD, Weiland BJ, Mayer A, Dodd A, Feldstein Ewing SW (2015) Does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? An examination with adolescents. Dev Cogn Neurosci 16:5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.005
Knutson B, Greer SM (2008) Anticipatory affect: Neural correlates and consequences for choice. Philos Trans Royal Soc b: Biol Sci 363(1511):3771–3786. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0155
Knutson B, Westdorp A, Kaiser E, Hommer D (2000) FMRI visualization of brain activity during a monetary incentive delay task. Neuroimage 12(1):20–27. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0593
Lorenzetti V, Alonso-Lana S, Youssef GJ, Verdejo-Garcia A, Suo C, Cousijn J, Takagi M, Yücel M, Solowij N (2016) Adolescent Cannabis Use: What is the Evidence for Functional Brain Alteration? Curr Pharm Des 22(42):6353–6365. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612822666160805155922
Lorenzetti V, Hoch E, Hall W (2020) Adolescent cannabis use, cognition, brain health and educational outcomes: A review of the evidence. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol J Eur College Neuropsychopharmacol 36:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.03.012
Lupica CR, Riegel AC, Hoffman AF (2004) Marijuana and cannabinoid regulation of brain reward circuits. Br J Pharmacol 143(2):227–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0705931
Martz ME, Cope LM, Hardee JE, Brislin SJ, Weigard A, Zucker RA, Heitzeg MM (2021) Subtypes of inhibitory and reward activation associated with substance use variation in adolescence: A latent profile analysis of brain imaging data. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 21(5):1101–1114. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-021-00907-8
Martz ME, Trucco EM, Cope LM, Hardee JE, Jester JM, Zucker RA, Heitzeg MM (2016) Association of Marijuana Use With Blunted Nucleus Accumbens Response to Reward Anticipation. JAMA Psychiat 73(8):838–844. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1161
Martz ME, Zucker RA, Schulenberg JE, Heitzeg MM (2018) Psychosocial and neural indicators of resilience among youth with a family history of substance use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend 185:198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.12.015
Meier MH, Caspi A, R Knodt A, Hall W, Ambler A, Harrington H, Hogan S, M Houts R, Poulton R, Ramrakha S, Hariri AR, Moffitt TE (2022) Long-Term Cannabis Use and Cognitive Reserves and Hippocampal Volume in Midlife. Am J Psych, appiajp202121060664. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21060664
Meyer HC, Lee FS, Gee DG (2018) The Role of the Endocannabinoid System and Genetic Variation in Adolescent Brain Development. Neuropsychopharmacology 43(1):21–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2017.143
Monahan KC, Rhew IC, Hawkins JD, Brown EC (2014) Adolescent Pathways to Co-Occurring Problem Behavior: The Effects of Peer Delinquency and Peer Substance Use. J Res Adolesc 24(4):630–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12053
Moore GF, Cox R, Evans RE, Hallingberg B, Hawkins J, Littlecott HJ, Long SJ, Murphy S (2018) School, Peer and Family Relationships and Adolescent Substance Use, Subjective Wellbeing and Mental Health Symptoms in Wales: A Cross Sectional Study. Child Indic Res 11(6):1951–1965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9524-1
Nestor L, Hester R, Garavan H (2010) Increased ventral striatal BOLD activity during non-drug reward anticipation in cannabis users. Neuroimage 49(1):1133–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.07.022
Nestor LJ, Behan B, Suckling J, Garavan H (2020) Cannabis-dependent adolescents show differences in global reward-associated network topology: A functional connectomics approach. Addict Biol 25(2):e12752. https://doi.org/10.1111/adb.12752
Oshri A, Rogosch FA, Burnette M, Cicchetti D (2011) Developmental Pathways to Adolescent Cannabis Abuse and Dependence: Child Maltreatment, Emerging Personality, and Internalizing versus Externalizing Psychopathology. Psychol Addict Behav J Soc Psychol Addict Behav 25(4):634–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023151
Pertwee RG (1997) Pharmacology of cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors. Pharmacol Ther 74(2):129–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0163-7258(97)82001-3
Petersen AC, Crockett L, Richards M, Boxer A (1988) A self-report measure of pubertal status: Reliability, validity, and initial norms. J Youth Adolesc 17(2):117–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537962
Petker T, DeJesus J, Lee A, Gillard J, Owens MM, Balodis I, Amlung M, George T, Oshri A, Hall G, Schmidt L, MacKillop J (2020) Cannabis use, cognitive performance, and symptoms of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in community adults. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 28(6):638–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000354
Pike N (2011) Using false discovery rates for multiple comparisons in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol Evol 2(3):278–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00061.x
Power JD, Barnes KA, Snyder AZ, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE (2012) Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. Neuroimage 59(3):2142–2154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018
Prus AJ (2018) Drugs and the neuroscience of behavior: An introduction to psychopharmacology (Second edition). SAGE
Rubino T, Parolaro D (2016) The Impact of Exposure to Cannabinoids in Adolescence: Insights From Animal Models. Biol Psychiat 79(7):578–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.07.024
Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M (1993) Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption–II. Addiction (abingdon, England) 88(6):791–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x
Schumann G, Loth E, Banaschewski T, Barbot A, Barker G, Büchel C, Conrod PJ, Dalley JW, Flor H, Gallinat J, Garavan H, Heinz A, Itterman B, Lathrop M, Mallik C, Mann K, Martinot J-L, Paus T, Poline J-B … Struve M (2010) The IMAGEN study: Reinforcement-related behaviour in normal brain function and psychopathology. Mol Psych, 15(12), 1128–1139. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2010.4
Skumlien M, Langley C, Lawn W, Voon V, Curran HV, Roiser JP, Sahakian BJ (2021) The acute and non-acute effects of cannabis on reward processing: A systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 130:512–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.008
Skumlien M, Mokrysz C, Freeman TP, Wall MB, Bloomfield M, Lees R, Borissova A, Petrilli K, Carson J, Coughlan T, Ofori S, Langley C, Sahakian BJ, Curran HV, Lawn W (2022) Neural responses to reward anticipation and feedback in adult and adolescent cannabis users and controls. Neuropsychopharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-022-01316-2
Spechler PA, Stewart JL, Kuplicki R, Tulsa 1000 Investigators, Paulus MP (2020) Attenuated reward activations associated with cannabis use in anxious/depressed individuals. Translational Psych, 10(1), 189 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-020-0807-9
Squeglia LM, Jacobus J, Nguyen-Louie TT, Tapert SF (2014) Inhibition during early adolescence predicts alcohol and marijuana use by late adolescence. Neuropsychology 28(5):782–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000083
Steinberg L (2008) A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking. Developmental Review : DR 28(1):78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002
Stringfield SJ, Torregrossa MM (2021) Disentangling the lasting effects of adolescent cannabinoid exposure. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 104:110067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110067
Sultan RS, Zhang AW, Olfson M, Kwizera MH, Levin FR (2023) Nondisordered Cannabis Use Among US Adolescents. JAMA Netw Open 6(5):e2311294. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.11294
Tong TT, Vaidya JG, Kramer JR, Kuperman S, Langbehn DR, O’Leary DS (2020) Behavioral inhibition and reward processing in college binge drinkers with and without marijuana use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108119
van Hell HH, Vink M, Ossewaarde L, Jager G, Kahn RS, Ramsey NF (2010) Chronic effects of cannabis use on the human reward system: An fMRI study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol J Eur College Neuropsychopharmacol 20(3):153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2009.11.010
Van Ryzin MJ, Fosco GM, Dishion TJ (2012) Family and peer predictors of substance use from early adolescence to early adulthood: An 11-year prospective analysis. Addict Behav 37(12):1314–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.020
Wechsler D (2008) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale: Technical and interpretive manual (Vol. 4). Psychological Corporation
Wendel LK, Daedelow L, Kaminski J, Banaschewski T, Millenet S, Bokde ALW, Quinlan EB, Desrivières S, Flor H, Grigis A, Garavan H, Gowland P, Heinz A, Brühl R, Martinot J-L, Artiges E, Nees F, Papadopoulos Orfanos D, Paus T … Walter H (2021) Residual effects of cannabis-use on neuropsychological functioning. Cognitive Dev, 59, 101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101072
Yip SW, DeVito EE, Kober H, Worhunsky PD, Carroll KM, Potenza MN (2014) Pretreatment measures of brain structure and reward-processing brain function in cannabis dependence: An exploratory study of relationships with abstinence during behavioral treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend 140:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.03.031
Acknowledgements
Members of the IMAGEN consortium: Tobias Banaschewski, Gareth J. Barker, Arun L.W. Bokde, Sylvane Desrivières, Herta Flor, Antoine Grigis, Hugh Garavan, Penny Gowland, Andreas Heinz, Rüdiger Brühl, Jean-Luc Martinot, Marie-Laure Paillère Martinot, Eric Artiges, Frauke Nees, Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos, Herve Lemaitre, Tomás Paus, Luise Poustka, Sarah Hohmann, Sabina Millenet, Juliane H. Fröhner, Lauren Robinson, Michael N. Smolka, Nilakshi Vaidya, Henrik Walter, Jeanne M. Winterer, Robert Whelan, and Gunter Schumann.
Funding
Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). This work received support from the following sources: Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (grant reference 2021.06791.BD); the European Union-funded FP6 Integrated Project IMAGEN (Reinforcement-related behaviour in normal brain function and psychopathology) (LSHM-CT- 2007–037286), the Horizon 2020 funded ERC Advanced Grant ‘STRATIFY’ (Brain network based stratification of reinforcement-related disorders) (695313), Human Brain Project (HBP SGA 2, 785907, and HBP SGA 3, 945539), the Medical Research Council Grant 'c-VEDA’ (Consortium on Vulnerability to Externalizing Disorders and Addictions) (MR/N000390/1), the National Institute of Health (NIH) (R01DA049238, A decentralized macro and micro gene-by-environment interaction analysis of substance use behavior and its brain biomarkers), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, the Bundesministeriumfür Bildung und Forschung (BMBF grants 01GS08152; 01EV0711; Forschungsnetz AERIAL 01EE1406A, 01EE1406B; Forschungsnetz IMAC-Mind 01GL1745B), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG grants SM 80/7–2, SFB 940, TRR 265, NE 1383/14–1), the Medical Research Foundation and Medical Research Council (grants MR/R00465X/1 and MR/S020306/1), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded ENIGMA (grants 5U54EB020403-05 and 1R56AG058854-01), NSFC grant 82150710554 and European Union funded project ‘environMENTAL’, grant no: 101057429. Further support was provided by grants from:—the ANR (ANR-12-SAMA-0004, AAPG2019—GeBra), the Eranet Neuron (AF12-NEUR0008-01—WM2NA; and ANR-18-NEUR00002-01—ADORe), the Fondation de France (00081242), the Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (DPA20140629802), the Mission Interministérielle de Lutte-contre-les-Drogues-et-les-Conduites-Addictives (MILDECA), the Assistance-Publique-Hôpitaux-de-Paris and INSERM (interface grant), Paris Sud University IDEX 2012, the Fondation de l’Avenir (grant AP-RM-17–013), the Fédération pour la Recherche sur le Cerveau; the National Institutes of Health, Science Foundation Ireland (16/ERCD/3797), U.S.A. (Axon, Testosterone and Mental Health during Adolescence; RO1 MH085772-01A1) and by NIH Consortium grant U54 EB020403, supported by a cross-NIH alliance that funds Big Data to Knowledge Centres of Excellence. ImagenPathways "Understanding the Interplay between Cultural, Biological and Subjective Factors in Drug Use Pathways" is a collaborative project supported by the European Research Area Network on Illicit Drugs (ERANID). This paper is based on independent research commissioned and funded in England by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (project ref. PR-ST-0416–10001). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the national funding agencies or ERANID.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Contributions
IM: funding acquisition, conceptualized the study, conducted the analyses, created figures, interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. TOP: substantially contributed to the conceptualization and execution of fMRI data analyses, reviewed the manuscript, and offered final approval of the version to be published. RP: supervision, contributed to the conceptualization of the study, provided substantial guidance on the primary analyses and interpretation of the results, substantially contributed to the drafting of the manuscript, and offered final approval of the version to be published. LD: contributed to the early conceptualization of the study, reviewed the paper, and offered final approval of the version to be published. AM: supervision, reviewed early conceptualization of the study, reviewed the paper, and offered final approval of the version to be published. FB: supervision, contributed to the early conceptualization of the study, reviewed the paper, and offered final approval of the version to be published. IMAGEN Consortium (TB, ALWB, SD, HF, AG, HG, PG, AH, RB, J-LM, M-LPM, EA, FN, DPO, HL, TP, LP, SH, SM, JHF, LR, MNS, NV, HW, JMW, RW, GS): conceptualization of the original multicentric study, funding and resources acquisition, recruitment, data collection, fMRI data preprocessing and first level analyses, reviewed and accepted early conceptualization of the study, reviewed the final paper, and offered final approval of the version to be published.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Declarations
Dr Banaschewski served in an advisory or consultancy role for eye level, Infectopharm, Lundbeck, Medice, Neurim Pharmaceuticals, Oberberg GmbH, Roche, and Takeda. He received conference support or speaker’s fee from Janssen, Medice and Takeda. He received royalties from Hogrefe, Kohlhammer, CIP Medien, Oxford University Press; the present work is unrelated to these relationships. Dr Barker has received honoraria from General Electric Healthcare for teaching on scanner programming courses. Dr Poustka served in an advisory or consultancy role for Roche and Viforpharm and received a speaker's fee from Shire. She received royalties from Hogrefe, Kohlhammer and Schattauer. The present work is unrelated to the above grants and relationships.
Competing interests
The other authors report no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Macedo, I., Paiva, T.O., Pasion, R. et al. Light Cannabis Use and the Adolescent Brain: An 8-years Longitudinal Assessment of Mental Health, Cognition, and Reward Processing. Psychopharmacology 241, 1447–1461 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-024-06575-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-024-06575-z