The neurocognitive effects of simulated use-of-force scenarios
- 492 Downloads
While the physiologic effects of modern conducted electrical weapons (CEW) have been the subject of numerous studies, their effects on neurocognitive functioning, both short-term and long-term, are less well understood. It is also unclear how these effects compare to other use-of-force options or other arrest-related stressors. We compared the neurocognitive effects of an exposure to a TASER® (TASER International, Inc, Scottsdale, AZ) X26™ CEW to four other use-of-force scenarios during a training exercise using a well-established neurocognitive metric administered repeatedly over 1 h. Overall, we found that there was a decline in neurocognitive performance immediately post-scenario in all groups, but this effect was transient, of questionable clinical significance, and returned to baseline by 1 h post-scenario.
KeywordsTASER Conducted electrical weapon CEW Neurocognitive Use-of-force K-9 Oleoresin capsicum Pepper spray Fight Flight
- 1.Kandt v. TASER International, Inc., 2nd Cir. NY; 2012.Google Scholar
- 2.U.S. v. Chancellor, S.D. Fla; 2008.Google Scholar
- 3.U.S. v. Mack, M.D. La; 2009.Google Scholar
- 7.Reich S, Short P, Kane R, Weiner W, Shulman L, Anderson K. Validation of the ANAM test battery in Parkinson’s disease. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA452204. Accessed 25 Feb 2013.
- 8.McDiarmid MA, Engelhardt SM, Oliver M, Gucer P, Wilson PD, Kane R, Cernich A, Kaup B, Anderson L, Hoover D, Brown J, Albertini R, Gudi R, Jacoson-Kram D, Squibb KS. Health surveillance of Gulf War I veterans exposed to depleted uranium: updating the cohort. Health Phys. 2007;93(1):60–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Harris WC, Hancock PA. Field assessment of cognitive performance under stress. In: Proceedings of HFES 47th annual meeting. 2003;1953–7.Google Scholar
- 11.Harris WC, Hancock PA, Morgan CA, editors. Cognitive change in special forces personnel following stressful survival training. In: Proceedings of HFES 49th annual meeting. 2005;1776–9.Google Scholar
- 14.Criscione J, Boggess M. An independent assessment of the physiological and cognitive effects from the X26 TASER device in volunteer human subjects, Contract W911QY-08-C-0023 (U.S. Marine Corps Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program) Final Report. Texas A&M University; 2009.Google Scholar
- 15.Martinelli R, Staton J. The forensic force series: psychophysiological responses to TASER-ECD influence. Law Enforc Exec Forum. 2010;10(4):101–13.Google Scholar
- 17.Salisbury v. Itasca County, 8th Cir. Minn; 2010.Google Scholar
- 18.Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 296; 1989.Google Scholar
- 19.Bryan v. MacPherson, 9th Cir. Cal; 2010.Google Scholar