Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The neurocognitive effects of simulated use-of-force scenarios

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kandt v. TASER International, Inc., 2nd Cir. NY; 2012.

  2. U.S. v. Chancellor, S.D. Fla; 2008.

  3. U.S. v. Mack, M.D. La; 2009.

  4. Bryan C, Hernandez AM. Magnitudes of decline on automated neuropsychological assessment metrics subtest sores relative to predeployment baseline performance among service members evaluated for traumatic brain injury in Iraq. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2012;27(1):45–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thorne DR. Throughput: a simple performance index with desirable characteristics. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38(4):569–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Short P, Cernich A, Wilken J, Kane R. Initial construct validation of frequently employed ANAM measures through structural equation modeling. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22S:S63–77.

    Article  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris WC, Hancock PA. Field assessment of cognitive performance under stress. In: Proceedings of HFES 47th annual meeting. 2003;1953–7.

  10. Harris WC, Hancock PA, Harris SC. Information processing changes following extended stress. Mil Psychol. 2005;17(2):115–28.

    Article  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.

  12. Chelune GJ, Naugle RI, Luders H, Sedlak J, Awad IA. Individual change after epilepsy surgery: practice effects and base-rate information. Neuropsychol. 1993;7:41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vincent AS, Roebuck-Spencer T, Lopez MS, Twillie DA, Logan BW, Grate SJ, Friedl KE, Schlegel RE, Gilliland K. Effects of military deployment on cognitive functioning. Mil Med. 2012;177(3):248–55.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  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 

  16. Crews W, Barth J, Brelsford T, Francis J, McArdle P. Neuropsychological dysfunction in severe accidental electrical shock: two case reports. Appl Neuropsychol. 1997;4(4):208–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Salisbury v. Itasca County, 8th Cir. Minn; 2010.

  18. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 296; 1989.

  19. Bryan v. MacPherson, 9th Cir. Cal; 2010.

  20. Ho J, Dawes D, Nelson R, Lundin E, Ryan F, Overton K, Zeiders A, Miner J. Acidosis and catecholamine evaluation following simulated law enforcement use of force encounters. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(7):e60–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lompoc Valley Medical Center, Lompoc, CA, USA

    Donald M. Dawes

  2. Santa Barbara Police Department, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Donald M. Dawes

  3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, 701 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN, 55415, USA

    Jeffrey D. Ho, Paul C. Nystrom, Johanna C. Moore, Lila W. Steinberg & James R. Miner

  4. Meeker County Sheriff’s Office, Litchfield, MN, USA

    Jeffrey D. Ho & Marc S. Berris

  5. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

    Andrea S. Vincent

  6. College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Anne Marie K. Tilton

  7. LAAW International, LLC, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Michael A. Brave

  8. Segal, Roston and Berris, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Marc S. Berris

Authors
  1. Donald M. Dawes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey D. Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea S. Vincent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul C. Nystrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Johanna C. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lila W. Steinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anne Marie K. Tilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael A. Brave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marc S. Berris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. James R. Miner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald M. Dawes.

Additional information

TASER International, Inc. provided funding and material support for this study. Dr. Ho is the medical director for TASER. Dr. Dawes is a consultant to TASER. Mr. Brave is the national litigation counsel for TASER. Drs. Ho and Dawes and Mr. Brave own shares of stock in the company. The University of Oklahoma holds the exclusive contract for the development of ANAM.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dawes, D.M., Ho, J.D., Vincent, A.S. et al. The neurocognitive effects of simulated use-of-force scenarios. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 10, 9–17 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-013-9510-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-013-9510-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation