Abstract
Purpose of Review
This narrative review provides an update of our knowledge on the relation between heavy cannabis use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) and the brain based on (f)MRI studies conducted in the past 5 years.
Recent Findings
Heavy cannabis use and CUD are associated with structural brain changes—particularly volume—as well as altered resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) in several networks and regions. Task-based fMRI studies reveal altered activity and connectivity in cannabis users compared to controls, but consistency of the results is domain dependent. Heaviness of use, CUD status, age, sex, and tobacco co-use are important potential moderators of the effects of cannabis on the brain.
Summary
Heavy cannabis use and CUD are associated with differences in brain structure and function, but causality remains unclear, and long-term effects following abstinence require further investigation. Considering moderators of the effects of cannabis on the brain is crucial to further assess individual differences in the impact of cannabis use.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Over 200 million people use cannabis every year [1], making it the most widely used drug in the world. Legalization of recreational cannabis use is associated with increased initiation of use, a narrowing gender gap in use (i.e., more female users), and increased daily use, especially among adolescents [1]. More than 30% of daily users are at high risk [2] for the development of a cannabis use disorder (CUD).
Cannabis consists of many compounds, of which psychoactive delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC) and non-psychoactive cannabidiol (CBD) are the most studied. ∆9-THC binds to endocannabinoid 1 (CB1) receptors in the brain [3], causing the experienced “high.” The mechanisms of CBD’s action on the brain are less understood, but some research suggests it may have medicinal effects, such as reducing inflammation [4]. Some evidence also suggests it may mitigate some of the negative effects of ∆9-THC in certain populations [5, 6], although this is disputed [7]. While high-CBD medicinal products are increasingly available, THC:CBD ratios have risen in commonly used cannabis products, potentially increasing the harmful effects of cannabis use on the brain [1].
In this narrative review, we will provide an updated overview of MRI studies conducted in the past 5 years, focusing on the effects of frequent cannabis use and CUD on the brain. Furthermore, we will present the highlights from recent studies and the remaining challenges in the field.
Recent Evidence on the Effects of Cannabis on Brain Structure and Function
Structural MRI
Historically, frequent cannabis use has most consistently been associated with reduced hippocampal and prefrontal cortex—especially orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)—volume [8,9,10,11] and increased cerebellar grey matter (GM) volume [12]. One recent meta-analysis found smaller hippocampal and OFC volumes in regular cannabis users [10], while another found reduced thalamus, hippocampus, amygdala, and nucleus accumbens (NAc) volume in CUD [13••] compared to controls. Similarly, dependent cannabis users had reduced bilateral hippocampal volume compared to non-dependent users (who did not differ from controls) even when controlling for use frequency [14]. Several studies found no differences in brain structure between less frequent cannabis users compared to controls [15, 16]. Regarding cortical surface morphology (thickness, surface area, and gyrification), no differences were observed between dependent users, non-dependent users, and controls, and no associations between age of onset and cortical surface morphology [17].
In addition to changes in GM volume, dependent cannabis users exhibited alterations in hippocampal shape—particularly bilateral deflation along the superior-medial body [14]—indicating that hippocampal alterations might be dependent on the subfield assessed [18, 19]. Furthermore, chronic heavy cannabis users exhibit decreased grey matter density in several frontal, temporal, and occipital regions and increased density in basal ganglia, cerebellum, and parietal regions compared to controls [20•].
Few studies have explored the association between volume alterations and cognitive performance. Lower left hippocampal volume has been shown to mediate the association between higher cannabis exposure and lower working memory performance [21]. Also, lower left anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) volume in cannabis users was associated with lower accuracy on an emotion discrimination task [22]. Grey matter volume changes in the cortical-thalamic-cerebellar-cortical circuit in heavy male cannabis users compared to controls are associated with impaired sensorimotor performance [23•]. Reduced cortical thickness in the right entorhinal and left OFC in male cannabis users compared to controls was associated with poorer performance on a verbal learning task [24].
Longitudinal studies assessing causal effects of cannabis use on brain structure are rare. One study in adolescents found an association between higher lifetime cannabis use and bilateral thinness of the prefrontal cortex at a 5-year follow-up, but cortical thickness at baseline was not associated with lifetime cannabis use at follow-up [25]. As there was no association between cortical thickness at baseline and lifetime cannabis use at follow-up, the findings suggest that the observed changes in cortical thickness could be attributable to cannabis use during the interim period. Additionally, higher cannabis use was associated with faster age-related cortical thinning in the prefrontal cortex. Meier et al. (2019) found that cannabis use trajectories in a sample of male adolescents were not associated with altered GM volume and cortical thickness in adulthood [26•]. However, Burggren et al. (2018) showed that individuals who used heavily during adolescence (> 19 uses/month for at least 1 year) had thinner hippocampi later in life (age 57–75), even when use reduced in adulthood (< 3 uses/month after age 35). Furthermore, a 3-year longitudinal study found that cannabis use was related to altered cerebellar thickness, with cannabis users showing a larger increase in thickness in several cerebellar lobules compared to controls. This increase was associated with age of onset of cannabis use and cannabis use and related problems (CUDIT score, [27]) at both baseline and follow-up [28•].
The prevalence of co-use of tobacco and cannabis has been reported to be particularly high [29], highlighting the need to disentangle the effects on the brain resulting from singular or co-use. Daniju et al. (2022) compared grey matter volume between cannabis users who also smoke tobacco cigarettes, non-cannabis-using tobacco cigarette smokers, and non-cannabis/tobacco-using controls. Co-users of cannabis and tobacco as well as those only using tobacco showed lower GM volume in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and higher putamen volume compared to non-using controls. Lower right frontal pole volume was specifically associated with lifetime cannabis use in cannabis-tobacco co-users [30] (Table 1).
Resting-State fMRI
A recent systematic review of resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) in adolescents and adults found that cannabis users exhibit higher frontal-frontal, fronto-striatal, and fronto-temporal RSFC than controls [31•] across 40% of included studies, but these effects were inconsistently associated with cannabis use measures. Focusing on emotion processing regions, a more recent study found that individuals with CUD showed lower amygdala-cortical and cingulate-temporal RSFC and higher cingulate-occipital RSFC compared to controls, with most of these alterations associated with higher CUD symptom count and cannabis use disorder identification test (CUDIT) scores (except left ACC—lateral occipital [32]). Heavy cannabis users, compared to controls, showed increased connectivity between anterior cerebellar regions and the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), as well as reduced connectivity between the other cerebellar regions (Crus I and II; lobule VIIb, VIIIa, VIIIb, IX, and X) and cortical regions (frontal gyri, insula, caudate, putamen, and middle temporal gyri). These alterations were not associated with measures of cannabis use (lifetime use and age of onset, [33]) and are largely inconsistent with the findings of another study except for similar cerebellar-insula RSFC [34]. Focusing on the OFC, PCC, and hippocampus in older (age 60–88) weekly cannabis users, higher RSFC was observed between the left cerebellum and left hippocampus compared to controls [35]. Comparing older to younger non-using individuals, the younger group exhibited higher RSFC between the left cerebellum and left hippocampus, suggesting potentially protective effects of cannabis use in older age, but further research is needed.
Task-Based fMRI
Working Memory
Findings from studies assessing working memory (WM) performance and associated brain activity have been inconsistent [9•]. Altered default mode network activity (precuneus and PCC) was observed in heavy-dependent cannabis users compared to controls during a letter N-back task, but this effect was not related to task performance or cannabis use and related problems [36]. Exploratory analyses revealed increased WM-related activity in the superior frontal gyrus (SFG) in male compared to female cannabis users.
In an adapted letter N-back task, the presence of cannabis words (flankers) was associated with decreased WM-load–related activity in the insula, thalamus, superior parietal lobe (SPL), and supramarginal gyrus (SMG) in cannabis users compared to controls. The cannabis and control groups did not differ in task performance, which was not affected by the cannabis and neutral word flankers [37].
Using a similar letter N-back task, cannabis users exhibited increased activation in bilateral temporal regions and the right SFG compared to controls [38•]. Functional connectivity analyses showed altered connectivity between various seed regions, including lower connectivity from the left superior temporal gyrus (STG) to the ACC and OFC, as well as lower connectivity between the medial frontal gyrus (MFG) and right parahippocampal gyrus. Additionally, cannabis users exhibited higher connectivity between the left STG and the thalamus and decreased functional connectivity of the ventral tegmental area (VTA; reward network) with frontal, temporal, and limbic regions. These WM-related functional connectivity alterations in fronto-temporal and reward-related regions should be replicated with larger samples.
Effective connectivity via dynamic causal modelling indicates the direction of communication between regions. Individuals with CUD showed smaller WM-related changes in effective connectivity between the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and left caudate and larger changes in effective connectivity between the left DLPFC and left caudate, right DLPFC and right caudate, and the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) and left caudate compared to controls during a picture N-back task [39]. Individuals with early compared to late-onset CUD showed greater WM-related changes in effective connectivity between the left and right DLPFC and smaller changes in effective connectivity between left VLPFC and right DLPFC. Effective connectivity in individuals with CUD was not associated with task performance.
A Sternberg spatial working memory task with a cue-delay-target structure was used to disentangle activity during the encoding, maintenance, and retrieval phases of the N-back task [40]. Users and controls did not differ in activity, but posterior parietal cortex (PPC) activity during the encoding phase was negatively associated with age of onset of cannabis use. Additionally, PPC activity during encoding mediated the association between age of onset and reaction times. Furthermore, heavier cannabis use was associated with higher right DLPFC activation during the maintenance and retrieval phases.
Decision-Making and Inhibition
Examining risk-taking behavior and effective functional connectivity during a BART task, both cannabis users and controls exhibited activity in regions associated with risk-taking behavior and reward (e.g., dorsal ACC, NAc, and insula, [41]). While no group differences in risk-taking-related activity were observed, effective connectivity analyses between the dorsal ACC, NAc, and insula indicated an absence of inhibitory effects of the dorsal ACC on the NAc in the cannabis group which was present in the controls.
Looking at whole brain inhibition (Go-NoGo task)-related activity, 2-week abstinent cannabis users showed higher activity in the left MFG, left SFG, and left ACC during correct inhibitions compared to controls (lifetime use < 51, past year use < 6) [42]. This association was not moderated by gender.
Reward, Error, and Time Processing
In a monetary incentive delay task, weekly cannabis users showed higher activity in the frontal pole, SMG, and angular gyrus during feedback compared to controls [43•]. Furthermore, adolescent cannabis users showed higher feedback-related activity in the SFG than adult cannabis users, but no group differences in reward anticipation–related activity were observed, and analyses assessing age (adolescent/adults) effects showed no significant effects. Predefined regions of interest (left ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and ventral striatum) based on an earlier meta-analysis of the same monetary incentive delay task did not show any effects [44].
Similarly, in adolescent cannabis users, activity during a monetary incentive delay task in the bilateral ventral striatum was not associated with CUDIT scores [45]. However, CUDIT scores were negatively associated with lingual gyrus and putamen activity during inaccurate trials (compared to accurate trials) and ACC and dorsomedial PFC activity during punished inaccurate trials (compared to other trial types). These results suggest more severe cannabis use, and related problems are linked to reduced responsiveness to errors.
In a novelty task, the tendency to seek novel stimuli was positively associated with reward prediction error–related activity in attention-related regions (IPL, dorsomedial PFC, and STG) in adolescents with low CUDIT scores, but this association was negative in adolescents with high CUDIT scores [46]. These findings indicate altered attentional response to novel stimuli in adolescents with more severe cannabis use and related problems.
Looking at the brain processes underlying the processing of affective negative and positive future events, those with higher CUDIT scores showed less activity in the ACC and PCC, STG, fusiform gyrus, and putamen when presented with high-intensity future events, suggesting blunted responsiveness to affective future events in those with more severe use and related problems [47]. Similarly, cannabis users exhibited lower cerebellar, MTG, STG, fusiform gyrus, and lateral occipital cortex activity when envisioning future events compared to controls [48].
The effect of cannabis dependence on social reward processing in heterosexual cannabis-dependent men who were abstinent for 28 days before assessment was assessed with an interpersonal pleasant touch paradigm [49]. Controls exhibited greater right dorsal striatal and putamen activity in response to female compared to male touch, while cannabis users showed relatively lower activity, which was associated with heavier lifetime cannabis use.
Emotion and Face Processing
Emotion and face processing have gained attention in addiction research as evidence emerged that socio-emotional processes are important in dependence and recovery. Adolescent cannabis users with higher CUDIT scores displayed reduced responsiveness to faces in the left superior-medial PFC and ACC, regardless of the emotion presented [50]. The valence of stimuli may also be important, as 28-day abstinent cannabis users displayed altered responses to negative but not positive emotional stimuli compared to controls [51]. Specifically, the cannabis group showed higher right medial OFC activity and higher functional connectivity with the left dorsal striatum and left amygdala, even after prolonged abstinence.
Focusing on the link between emotional and cognitive brain processes, emotional brain responses (response to angry or fearful faces vs. shapes) were correlated with cognitive brain responses (high load working memory vs. recognition) in cannabis users with CUD but not non-dependent users or controls [52]. Similarly, only the cannabis users with CUD showed a correlation between cognitive and emotional task performance on a behavioral level. Reduced segregation of emotional and cognitive processes might affect cognitive function when presented with emotionally demanding situations.
Cue-Reactivity
Cannabis cue-reactivity—the brain’s response to cannabis stimuli—is considered a key factor in cue-induced craving and drug-seeking behavior (e.g., [53••]). Cannabis-using late adolescents (aged 17–21) rated cannabis images as more rewarding than neutral images and exhibited higher activity in regions involved in salience and reward processes (including the precuneus, thalamus, PCC, and the MFG and SFG) in response to cannabis relative to neutral images [54]. However, increased cue-reactivity was not associated with heaviness of use, and no control group was included. Similar results were observed in weekly cannabis-using adults using a multimodal cue-exposure paradigm [55]. Cannabis users compared to controls showed higher activity in reward-related regions (including the VTA, insula, and pallidum) in response to visual and odor cannabis cues compared to neutral cues, but not when compared to flower cues. Bimodal conditions—in which both visual and odor cues were presented simultaneously—showed similar results but also showed higher activity in the SPL in cannabis users compared to controls for cannabis cues compared to flower cues. Higher cue-reactivity for bimodal cannabis compared to neutral cues in the cingulate gyrus, left insula, and occipital lobe was also associated with higher craving after cue-exposure.
Visual cannabis cue-reactivity in male-dependent cannabis users has been compared to heavy non-dependent users and controls [56]. While all cannabis users showed higher visual cannabis cue-reactivity in the ventral striatum (as well as prefrontal, cingulate, and parietal clusters), higher cue-activity in the dorsal striatum was specific to the dependent users, which was also associated with higher craving in this subgroup.
As tobacco co-use is common in cannabis users [29], Kuhns et al. (2020) assessed cannabis cue-reactivity in heavy cannabis users and matched controls in which 50% of each group also smoked cigarettes daily [57]. Complex interactions between cannabis use status and cigarette use status were observed in the IFG, frontal pole, ACC, striatum, and amygdala. Non-cigarette-using cannabis users showed increased cue-reactivity in the amygdala compared to non-cigarette-using controls. However, cannabis and cigarette co-users did not show increased cannabis cue-reactivity compared to the cigarette-using controls. Cigarette-using controls showed increased cannabis cue-reactivity in the striatum and amygdala compared to non-cigarette-using controls and cannabis and cigarette co-users, as well as higher cannabis cue-reactivity in the ACC compared to cannabis and cigarette co-users. These results suggest that tobacco use may modulate cannabis cue-reactivity and that co-use should be considered when assessing cannabis cue-reactivity.
Highlights and Challenges
Differences Between Heavy Use and Cannabis Use Disorder
Although crucial to distinguish cannabis exposure effects from CUD-related effects, direct empirical comparisons between heavy use and CUD are still scarce [8, 9•]. Chye et al. (2019) showed that individuals with CUD had reduced hippocampal volume compared to heavy users [14] but no differences in cortical surface morphology [17]. Furthermore, CUD status was associated with cannabis cue-induced activity in the striatum: heavy cannabis use in a sample of males was associated with ventral striatal activity, while dependent use in a sample of males was associated with dorsal striatal activity [56]. The dorsal striatum has been suggested to mediate the shift towards habit formation and subsequently CUD [8, 56]. These findings are a step in the right direction and emphasize the importance of exploring the neurobiological mechanisms underlying heavy compared to dependent use in other domains.
Quantification of Cannabis Exposure
Although the studies included in this review reported on the heaviness of use and whether individuals were suffering from CUD, there was a lack of studies which quantified cannabis exposure. This includes stating the type of cannabis used, ratios of THC and CBD, as well as the potency of THC. This raises an important limitation of the research to date, as there is accumulating evidence to suggest differential effects of THC and CBD [58] as well as THC potency effects [59] on brain structure and function. Future studies should include a biochemical quantification of cannabis exposure to address some of the fundamental questions on the pharmacokinetics of different cannabinoids, and how they differentially impact the brain.
Age Matters
While it is often proposed that the adolescent brain is more vulnerable to the potential negative effects of cannabis than adults [60••], direct comparisons of adolescents and adults remain rare. Cannabis use has shown age-related effects on cortical thinning of the prefrontal cortex [25], and an earlier onset of use has been associated with larger increases in several cerebellar lobules [28•] and thinner hippocampi, once cannabis users reach adulthood [61]. However, findings on the effects of adolescent cannabis use on structural brain changes are inconsistent [26•]. Focusing on reward-related processes, adolescent cannabis users exhibited higher feedback-related activity in the SFG than adults, but age did not affect reward anticipation–related activity [43•]. Interestingly, cannabis use might have protective effects in older age as older cannabis users showed higher RSFC between the left cerebellum and left hippocampus compared to controls, similar to non-using younger individuals [35].
Despite the abundance of reviews on the effects of cannabis in specific age groups, particularly adolescence [e.g., 60••, 62••, 63••, 64••, 65], only one review evaluated studies directly comparing adolescents and adults [66••]. The evidence suggested that adolescents are more susceptible to the effects of cannabis use on aspects of cognition, especially in heavy and dependent users. There is also preliminary evidence of resilience during adolescence, as intoxicated adolescents were found to have increased spatial memory ability and decreased cognitive disorganization. While evidence is still limited, these findings suggest age-dependent effects of cannabis on the brain and cognition in several domains, highlighting the importance of direct age group comparisons in future studies.
Sex and Gender Differences
A growing body of evidence examined sex differences in the impact of cannabis use on the brain and cognition [67], but the effects of gender identity are unclear. As the sex gap in cannabis use is narrowing, research should aim to include equal numbers of men and women and collect data on gender identity to enable direct comparisons.
Preliminary evidence suggests that males exhibit heightened WM-related activity in the SFG compared to females [36], while sex did not moderate heightened inhibition-related activity in cannabis users compared to controls [68]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of sex-related differences in cortical gray matter volume found that a higher proportion of females in the included studies were associated with increased grey matter volume in the middle occipital gyrus in adolescent cannabis users versus controls [62••]. When investigating sex effects in adults, a recent systematic review found mixed findings, as the majority of included studies found no evidence of an interaction between sex and cannabis use on brain structure or function although there was evidence to suggest that adult females may be more susceptible to cannabis’ neurotoxic effects in the frontal and occipital cortex [69••].
Another important consideration is the effects of sex and gender on dual diagnoses [70••]. Preliminary evidence suggests that long-term cannabis use is associated with an increased vulnerability to the development of psychosis and anxiety in females and increased vulnerability to the development of depressive symptoms in males [70••]. Among female cannabis users, anxiety symptoms were correlated with larger amygdala volume [71]. Taken together, these findings indicate sex differences in vulnerability to psychiatric disorders associated with cannabis use, emphasizing the importance of considering comorbidity in the neurobiological impact of cannabis use.
Co-use of Tobacco
Co-use of tobacco and cannabis is highly prevalent, particularly in Europe [29], but is often under-reported or not controlled for in analyses. This is particularly concerning due to the evidence of potential interaction effects of tobacco and cannabis on the brain and aspects of cognition. For example, cannabis-only users showed heightened cannabis cue-reactivity in several reward-related regions, but no differences were found in co-users of cannabis and cigarettes [57]. Effects of cannabis use on brain structure should also consider cigarette use, as alterations in grey matter volume were found in both co-users of cannabis and tobacco and non-cannabis-using tobacco smokers [30]. This suggests similarities in the impact of cannabis and tobacco on the structure of the brain, highlighting the need to consider tobacco use history to better understand the unique and combined neurobiological mechanisms by which both drugs impact the brain.
There is also a high incidence of co-use of cannabis and alcohol [72]; however, to date, most studies have investigated the effects of alcohol or cannabis use on change in brain structure and function without considering co-use patterns [73]. Of the studies investigating the effects of co-use, the majority do not include an alcohol-only comparison group, and even less include a cannabis-only comparison group. In the limited studies which have compared co-users and single drug users, there is evidence of differential activity and connectivity between co-users and alcohol users [74], but further studies exploring brain structural and functional differences are necessary. In future studies, it will be important to include co-users, as well as single drug users, and non-using controls to draw conclusions on whether the effects are unique to a particular drug or co-use.
Causality and Evidence for Lasting Effects: Longitudinal Studies and Recovery After Abstinence?
Few longitudinal studies have investigated the causal relationship between cannabis use and brain structure, with even fewer exploring brain function. In a 5-year longitudinal study in adolescents [25], only cortical thickness at follow-up (and not baseline) was associated with lifetime cannabis use at follow-up; suggesting changes in cortical thickness are dependent on current use rather than preceding use. Furthermore, Meier et al. (2019) found that cannabis use trajectories in a sample of male adolescents did not affect grey matter volume and cortical thickness in adulthood (age 30–36, [26•]), whereas Burggren et al. (2018) showed thinner hippocampi in late adulthood (age 57–75) after adolescent cannabis use [61].
Additionally, limited research investigated recovery of brain structure and function after a period of abstinence. Some studies indicated persistent problems after two (inhibition, [43•]) to four (reward processing, [49]) weeks of abstinence. These findings align with a recent meta-analysis that found functional alterations persisting up to 25 days post-abstinence [75]. However, studies examining longer abstinence periods are crucial to determine long-term effects.
Conclusions
In conclusion, this review highlights the mounting evidence indicating that frequent cannabis use and CUD have apparent effects on brain structure and functioning. The findings reinforce previous research by confirming volumetric changes, particularly in the OFC and hippocampus, among regular and heavy users as well as those with CUD that might be associated with cognitive performance. Altered RSFC within and between various networks and regions was found in heavy users and those with CUD, compared to controls, but these alterations are more commonly found to be associated with measures of use and dependence in those with CUD. Task-based fMRI studies revealed altered WM and emotion as well as face processing–related activity and connectivity in cannabis users compared to controls. Limited evidence points towards cannabis use–related alterations of inhibition and decision-making-related brain activity. No group differences in reward-related brain activity were observed, but more severe use and related problems appear to be associated to altered processing of novel stimuli and reduced responsiveness to errors. Finally, heavy cannabis users and those with CUD show heightened cannabis cue-reactivity in reward-related regions compared to controls.
To date, the causal relationship between cannabis use and brain structure and functioning remains elusive. However, evidence suggests the persistence of alterations even after a period of abstinence lasting up to 25 days, highlighting the need for further investigation into the long-term effects following an extended period of abstinence. This review demonstrated the accumulating body of evidence supporting the impact of heavy use and CUD on brain structure, function, and cognition. However, findings also emphasize the necessity for studies to consider dependence status, age, sex, gender, tobacco and alcohol co-use, and tobacco and alcohol use histories when examining the effects of cannabis on the brain. By addressing these factors comprehensively, future research can provide a more complete understanding of the complex relationship between cannabis use and the brain.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
UNODC. World drug report 2022. United Nations; 2022. Accessed at https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/36513/
Leung J, Chan GC, Hides L, Hall WD. What is the prevalence and risk of cannabis use disorders among people who use cannabis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2020;1(109):106479.
Chandra S, Radwan MM, Majumdar CG, Church JC, Freeman TP, ElSohly MA. New trends in cannabis potency in USA and Europe during the last decade (2008–2017). Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2019;269:5–15.
Burstein S. Cannabidiol (CBD) and its analogs: a review of their effects on inflammation. Bioorg Med Chem. 2015;23:1377–85.
Pennypacker SD, Romero-Sandoval EA. CBD and THC: do they complement each other like Yin and Yang? Pharmacotherapy. 2020;40:1152–65.
Freeman AM, Petrilli K, Lees R, Hindocha C, Mokrysz C, Curran HV, et al. How does cannabidiol (CBD) influence the acute effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in humans? A Syst Rev Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019;107:696–712.
Englund A, Oliver D, Chesney E, Chester L, Wilson J, Sovi S, De Micheli A, Hodsoll J, Fusar-Poli P, Strang J, Murray RM. Does cannabidiol make cannabis safer? A randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial of cannabis with four different CBD: THC ratios. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2023;48(6):869–76.
Connor JP, Stjepanović D, Le Foll B, Hoch E, Budney AJ, Hall WD. Cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 7(1):16.
• Kroon E, Kuhns L, Hoch E, Cousijn J. Heavy cannabis use, dependence and the brain: a clinical perspective. Addiction. 2020;115:559–72. A narrative review exploring the relationship between heavy cannabis use, CUD and the brain. Both heavy and dependent use was found to be associated with a high prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders and learning and memory impairments. Although the authors state the current evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive.
Lorenzetti V, Chye Y, Silva P, Solowij N, Roberts CA. Does regular cannabis use affect neuroanatomy? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of structural neuroimaging studies. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2019;1(269):59–71.
Nader DA, Sanchez ZM. Effects of regular cannabis use on neurocognition, brain structure, and function: a systematic review of findings in adults. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2018;44:4–18.
Blithikioti C, Miquel L, Batalla A, Rubio B, Maffei G, Herreros I, et al. Cerebellar alterations in cannabis users: a systematic review. Addict Biol. 2019;24:1121–37.
•• Navarri X, Afzali MH, Lavoie J, Sinha R, Stein DJ, Momenan R, et al. How do substance use disorders compare to other psychiatric conditions on structural brain abnormalities? A cross-disorder meta-analytic comparison using the ENIGMA consortium findings. Hum Brain Mapp. 2022;43:399–413. A meta-analysis comparing structural brain abnormalities found in substance use disorder and other psychiatric conditions. CUD was found to be associated with reduced thalamus, hippocampus, amygdala and nucleus accumbens volume compared to controls.
Chye Y, Lorenzetti V, Suo C, Batalla A, Cousijn J, Goudriaan AE, et al. Alteration to hippocampal volume and shape confined to cannabis dependence: a multi-site study. Addict Biol. 2019;24:822–34.
Gillespie NA, Neale MC, Bates TC, Eyler LT, Fennema-Notestine C, Vassileva J, et al. Testing associations between cannabis use and subcortical volumes in two large population-based samples. Addiction. 2018;113:1661–72.
Scott JC, Rosen AFG, Moore TM, Roalf DR, Satterthwaite TD, Calkins ME, et al. Cannabis use in youth is associated with limited alterations in brain structure. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44:1362–9.
Chye Y, Suo C, Lorenzetti V, Batalla A, Cousijn J, Goudriaan AE, et al. Cortical surface morphology in long-term cannabis users: a multi-site MRI study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2019;29:257–65.
Cong Z, Fu Y, Chen N, Zhang L, Yao C, Wang Y, Yao Z, Hu B. Individuals with cannabis use are associated with widespread morphological alterations in the subregions of the amygdala, hippocampus, and pallidum. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;1(239):109595.
Garimella A, Rajguru S, Singla UK, Alluri V. Marijuana and the hippocampus: a longitudinal study on the effects of marijuana on hippocampal subfields. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020;13(101):109897.
• Wu YF, Yang B. Gray matter changes in chronic heavy cannabis users: a voxel-level study using multivariate pattern analysis approach. Neuroreport. 2020;31(17):1236–41. A prospective study using multivariate pattern analysis to investigate voxel-level changes of grey matter densities in chronic heavy cannabis users. Chronic heavy users were found to exhibit decreased grey matter density in several frontal, temporal and occipital regions and increased density in basal ganglia, cerebellum and parietal regions compared to controls.
Paul S, Bhattacharyya S. Cannabis use-related working memory deficit mediated by lower left hippocampal volume. Addict Biol. 2021;26(4):e12984.
Maple KE, Thomas AM, Kangiser MM, Lisdahl KM. Anterior cingulate volume reductions in abstinent adolescent and young adult cannabis users: association with affective processing deficits. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. 2019;288:51–9.
• Wolf RC, Werler F, Wittemann M, Schmitgen MM, Kubera KM, Wolf ND, Reith W, Hirjak D. Structural correlates of sensorimotor dysfunction in heavy cannabis users. Addict Biol. 2021;26(5):e13032. One of the few studies to date to explore the association between volume alterations and cognitive performance in heavy cannabis users. Grey matter volume changes in the cortical-thalamic-cerebellar-cortical circuit in heavy cannabis users compared to controls were found to be associated with impaired sensorimotor performance.
Wittemann M, Brielmaier J, Rubly M, Kennel J, Werler F, Schmitgen MM, et al. Cognition and cortical thickness in heavy cannabis users. Eur Addict Res. 2021;27:115–22.
Albaugh MD, Ottino-Gonzalez J, Sidwell A, Lepage C, Juliano A, Owens MM, et al. Association of cannabis use during adolescence with neurodevelopment. JAMA Psychiat. 2021;78:1031–40.
• Meier MH, Schriber RA, Beardslee J, Hanson J, Pardini D. Associations between adolescent cannabis use frequency and adult brain structure: a prospective study of boys followed to adulthood. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;202:191–9. One of the few studies to investigate how cannabis use trajectories during adolescence impact brain structure in adulthood. Varying trajectories of cannabis use during adolescence were not associated with brain structural differences in adulthood.
Adamson SJ, Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Lewin TJ, Thornton L, Kelly BJ, et al. An improved brief measure of cannabis misuse: the cannabis use disorders identification test-revised (CUDIT-R). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;110:137–43.
• Wang Y, Zuo C, Xu Q, Hao L. Cerebellar thickness changes associated with heavy cannabis use: a 3-year longitudinal study. Addict Biol. 2021;26(3):e12931. One of the limited longitudinal studies to date to investigate cerebellar thickness changes associated with heavy use across a 3-year period. Both the VI and CrusI were found to have higher rates of increase in heavy cannabis users compared to non-cannabis using controls. Alterations in the CrusI and VI were associated with the age of onset of cannabis use, and CUDIT scores.
Hindocha C, Freeman TP, Ferris JA, Lynskey MT, Winstock AR. No smoke without tobacco: a global overview of cannabis and tobacco routes of administration and their association with intention to quit. Front Psychiatry. 2016;5(7):104.
Daniju Y, Faulkner P, Brandt K, Allen P. Prefrontal cortex and putamen grey matter alterations in cannabis and tobacco users. J Psychopharmacol. 2022;36:1315–23.
• Thomson H, Labuschagne I, Greenwood LM, Robinson E, Sehl H, Suo C, et al. Is resting-state functional connectivity altered in regular cannabis users? A systematic review of the literature. Psychopharmacology. 2022;239:1191–209. A systematic review investigating whether resting-state functional connectivity is altered in regular cannabis users. Greater functional connectivity was found between the frontal-frontal, fronto-striatal, and fronto-temporal pairings in cannabis users compared to controls. These same regions were found to be associated with different levels of cannabis exposure.
Aloi J, McCusker MC, Lew BJ, Schantell M, Eastman JA, Frenzel MR, et al. Altered amygdala-cortical connectivity in individuals with cannabis use disorder. J Psychopharmacol. 2021;35:1365–74.
Schnakenberg Martin AM, Kim DJ, Newman SD, Cheng H, Hetrick WP, Mackie K, et al. Altered cerebellar-cortical resting-state functional connectivity in cannabis users. J Psychopharmacol. 2021;35:823–32.
Sweigert J, Pagulayan K, Greco G, Blake M, Larimer M, Kleinhans NM. A multimodal investigation of cerebellar integrity associated with high-risk cannabis use. Addict Biol. 2020;25(6):e12839.
Watson KK, Bryan AD, Thayer RE, Ellingson JM, Skrzynski CJ, Hutchison KE. Cannabis use and resting state functional connectivity in the aging brain. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022;10(14):804890.
Kroon E, Kuhns LN, Kaag AM, Filbey F, Cousijn J. The role of sex in the association between cannabis use and working memory-related brain activity. J Neurosci Res. 2022;100:1347–58.
Kroon E, Kuhns L, Cousijn J. Context dependent differences in working memory related brain activity in heavy cannabis users. Psychopharmacology. 2022;239:1373–85.
• Hatchard T, Byron-Alhassan A, Mioduszewski O, Holshausen K, Correia S, Leeming A, et al. Working overtime: altered functional connectivity in working memory following regular cannabis use in young adults. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2021;19:1314–29. In a working memory task, no differences in performance indices were found between regular cannabis users and controls. However, increased activation in the left and right temporal lobes and the right superior frontal cortex was found in cannabis users, as well as altered functional connectivity between these regions.
Ma L, Steinberg JL, Bjork JM, Keyser-Marcus L, Vassileva J, Zhu M, et al. Fronto-striatal effective connectivity of working memory in adults with cannabis use disorder. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. 2018;278:21–34.
Tervo-Clemmens B, Simmonds D, Calabro FJ, Day NL, Richardson GA, Luna B. Adolescent cannabis use and brain systems supporting adult working memory encoding, maintenance, and retrieval. Neuroimage. 2018;169:496–509.
Raymond DR, Paneto A, Yoder KK, O'Donnell BF, Brown JW, Hetrick WP, Newman SD. Does chronic cannabis use impact risky decision-making: an examination of fMRI activation and effective connectivity? Front Psychiatry. 2020;27(11):599256.
Wallace AL, Maple KE, Barr AT, Lisdahl KM. BOLD responses to inhibition in cannabis-using adolescents and emerging adults after 2 weeks of monitored cannabis abstinence. Psychopharmacology. 2020;237:3259–68.
• Skumlien M, Mokrysz C, Freeman TP, Wall MB, Bloomfield M, Lees R, et al. Neural responses to reward anticipation and feedback in adult and adolescent cannabis users and controls. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;47:1976–83. In a monetary incentive delay task, weekly cannabis users showed higher activity in the frontal pole, SMG, and angular gyrus during feedback compared to controls. Adolescent cannabis users were found to exhibit higher feedback-related activity in the SFG than adult cannabis users, but age did not affect reward anticipation-related activity.
Oldham S, Murawski C, Fornito A, Youssef G, Yücel M, Lorenzetti V. The anticipation and outcome phases of reward and loss processing: a neuroimaging meta-analysis of the monetary incentive delay task. Hum Brain Mapp. 2018;39:3398–418.
Aloi J, Meffert H, White SF, Blair KS, Hwang S, Tyler PM, Thornton LC, Crum KI, Adams KO, Killanin AD, Filbey F. Differential dysfunctions related to alcohol and cannabis use disorder symptoms in reward and error-processing neuro-circuitries in adolescents. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2019;1(36):100618.
Aloi J, Crum KI, Blair KS, Zhang R, Bashford-Largo J, Bajaj S, Schwartz A, Carollo E, Hwang S, Leiker E, Filbey FM. Individual associations of adolescent alcohol use disorder versus cannabis use disorder symptoms in neural prediction error signaling and the response to novelty. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2021;1(48):100944.
Aloi J, Blair KS, Meffert H, White SF, Hwang S, Tyler PM, Crum KI, Thornton LC, Mobley A, Killanin AD, Filbey FM. Alcohol use disorder and cannabis use disorder symptomatology in adolescents is associated with dysfunction in neural processing of future events. Addict Biol. 2021;26(1):e12885.
Rafei P, Rezapour T, Batouli SAH, Verdejo-García A, Lorenzetti V, Hatami J. How do cannabis users mentally travel in time? Evidence from an fMRI study of episodic future thinking. Psychopharmacology. 2022;239:1441–57.
Zimmermann K, Kendrick KM, Scheele D, Dau W, Banger M, Maier W, et al. Altered striatal reward processing in abstinent dependent cannabis users: social context matters. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2019;29:356–64.
Leiker EK, Meffert H, Thornton LC, Taylor BK, Aloi J, Abdel-Rahim H, et al. Alcohol use disorder and cannabis use disorder symptomatology in adolescents are differentially related to dysfunction in brain regions supporting face processing. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. 2019;292:62–71.
Zimmermann K, Yao S, Heinz M, Zhou F, Dau W, Banger M, et al. Altered orbitofrontal activity and dorsal striatal connectivity during emotion processing in dependent marijuana users after 28 days of abstinence. Psychopharmacology. 2018;235:849–59.
Manza P, Shokri-Kojori E, Volkow ND. Reduced segregation between cognitive and emotional processes in cannabis dependence. Cereb Cortex. 2020;30:628–39.
•• Sehl H, Terrett G, Greenwood LM, Kowalczyk M, Thomson H, Poudel G, et al. Patterns of brain function associated with cannabis cue-reactivity in regular cannabis users: a systematic review of fMRI studies. Psychopharmacology. 2021;238:2709–28. A systematic review investigating brain functioning in cannabis users during exposure to cannabis vs neutral cues. Higher brain activity was consistently found in the striatum, prefrontal (anterior cingulate, middle frontal) and the parietal cortex (posterior cingulate/precuneus), and additionally in the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus and occipital cortex when cannabis users were exposed to cannabis vs neutral cues.
Karoly HC, Schacht JP, Meredith LR, Jacobus J, Tapert SF, Gray KM, et al. Investigating a novel fMRI cannabis cue reactivity task in youth. Addict Behav. 2019;89:20–8.
Kleinhans NM, Sweigert J, Blake M, Douglass B, Doane B, Reitz F, Larimer M. FMRI activation to cannabis odor cues is altered in individuals at risk for a cannabis use disorder. Brain Behav. 2020;10(10):e01764.
Zhou X, Zimmermann K, Xin F, Zhao W, Derckx RT, Sassmannshausen A, et al. Cue reactivity in the ventral striatum characterizes heavy cannabis use, whereas reactivity in the dorsal striatum mediates dependent use. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2019;4:751–62.
Kuhns L, Kroon E, Filbey F, Cousijn J. Unraveling the role of cigarette use in neural cannabis cue reactivity in heavy cannabis users. Addict Biol. 2021;26(3):e12941.
Batalla A, Bos J, Postma A, Bossong MG. The impact of cannabidiol on human brain function: a systematic review. Front Pharmacol. 2021;11:618184.
Burggren AC, Shirazi A, Ginder N, London ED. Cannabis effects on brain structure, function, and cognition: considerations for medical uses of cannabis and its derivatives. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2019;45(6):563–79.
•• Blest-Hopley G, Colizzi M, Giampietro V, Bhattacharyya S. Is the adolescent brain at greater vulnerability to the effects of cannabis? A narrative review of the evidence. Front Psychiatry. 2020;26(11):859. A narrative review evaluating the evidence to date of the impact of adolescent cannabis exposure on cognition, brain structure and function, and investigating whether the adolescent brain is at greater vulnerability to the effects of cannabis. Altered functional connectivity within known functional circuits were found to be altered in adolescent cannabis users.
Burggren AC, Siddarth P, Mahmood Z, London ED, Harrison TM, Merrill DA, et al. Subregional hippocampal thickness abnormalities in older adults with a history of heavy cannabis use. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2018;3:242–51.
•• Allick A, Park G, Kim K, Vintimilla M, Rathod K, Lebo R, Nanavati J, Hammond CJ. Age-and sex-related cortical gray matter volume differences in adolescent cannabis users: a systematic review and meta-analysis of voxel-based morphometry studies. Front Psychiatry. 2021;1(12):745193. A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating age and sex related cortical gray matter volume differences in adolescent cannabis users. There appears to be limited grey matter differences between cannabis using and typically developing youth. Of these limited differences, they may vary as a function of age, sex and cumulative cannabis exposure.
•• Coronado C, Wade NE, Aguinaldo LD, Hernandez Mejia M, Jacobus J. Neurocognitive correlates of adolescent cannabis use: an overview of neural activation patterns in task-based functional MRI studies. J Pediatr Neuropsychol. 2020;6:1–13. A review evaluating the recent findings on the relationship between adolescent cannabis use and brain activity and functioning during task-based MRI. The evidence to date points to hyperactive responses to task-based stimuli in adolescent cannabis users.
•• Lorenzetti V, Hoch E, Hall W. Adolescent cannabis use, cognition, brain health and educational outcomes: a review of the evidence. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2020;36:169–80. A review evaluating the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of case-control studies which examined cognitive and brain functioning correlates of adolescent cannabis use. Cannabis use was associated with detrimental effects on the brain and cognition, which persist beyond acute intoxication.
Fischer AS, Tapert SF, Louie DL, Schatzberg AF, Singh MK. Cannabis and the developing adolescent brain. Curr Treat Options Psychiatry. 2020;7:144–61.
•• Gorey C, Kuhns L, Smaragdi E, Kroon E, Cousijn J. Age-related differences in the impact of cannabis use on the brain and cognition: a systematic review. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2019;269:37–58. A systematic review evaluating the evidence to date of age-dependent effects of cannabis use on the brain and cognition. Aspects of risk and resilience to the effects of cannabis on the brain and cognition were found in adolescent cannabis users. Age effects were also found to be more prominent among very heavy and dependent users.
Rossetti MG, Mackey S, Patalay P, Allen NB, Batalla A, Bellani M, Chye Y, Conrod P, Cousijn J, Garavan H, Goudriaan AE. Sex and dependence related neuroanatomical differences in regular cannabis users: findings from the ENIGMA addiction working group. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11(1):272.
Wallace AL, Maple KE, Barr AT, Lisdahl KM. BOLD responses to inhibition in cannabis-using adolescents and emerging adults after 2 weeks of monitored cannabis abstinence. Psychopharmacology. 2020;237:3259–68.
•• Francis AM, Bissonnette JN, MacNeil SE, Crocker CE, Tibbo PG, Fisher DJ. Interaction of sex and cannabis in adult in vivo brain imaging studies: a systematic review. Brain Neurosci Adv. 2022;6:23982128211073431. A recent systematic review investigating sex effects of the impact of cannabis use on brain structure and function. The majority of included studies found no evidence of an interaction between sex and cannabis use on brain structure or function, although there was evidence to suggest adult women may be more susceptible to cannabis’ neurotoxic effects in the frontal and occipital cortex.
•• Prieto-Arenas L, Díaz I, Arenas MC. Gender differences in dual diagnoses associated with cannabis use: a review. Brain Sci. 2022;12(3):388. A review evaluating the evidence to date of gender differences in the development of depressive, psychotic and anxious symptoms associated with cannabis use. The results appear to indicate men are more vulnerable to developing depressive symptoms, while women show a higher vulnerability to develop psychosis and anxiety after long-term cannabis use.
Calakos KC, Bhatt S, Foster DW, Cosgrove KP. Mechanisms underlying sex differences in cannabis use. Curr Addict Rep. 2017;4:439–53.
Yurasek AM, Aston ER, Metrik J. Co-use of alcohol and cannabis: a review. Curr Addict Rep. 2017;4:184–93.
Karoly HC, Ross JM, Ellingson JM, Feldstein Ewing SW. Exploring cannabis and alcohol co-use in adolescents: a narrative review of the evidence. J Dual Diagn. 2020;16(1):58–74.
Bedillion MF, Blaine SK, Claus ED, Ansell EB. The effects of alcohol and cannabis co-use on neurocognitive function, brain structure, and brain function. Curr Behav Neurosci Rep. 2021:1–6.
Blest-Hopley G, Giampietro V, Bhattacharyya S. Regular cannabis use is associated with altered activation of central executive and default mode networks even after prolonged abstinence in adolescent users: Results from a complementary meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019;1(96):45–55.
Funding
This review was supported by grant 1R01 DA042490-01A1 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse/National Institute of Health and ERC-2020-STG 947761 awarded to Janna Cousijn and supported by salaries from the Erasmus University Rotterdam and ERC-ST grant 947761 iso 47761 awarded to Janna Cousijn.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
EK was responsible for the design and project supervision. EK and KCP conducted the literature search and wrote the manuscript text. CR prepared Table 1. JC, LK, and CR were involved in reviewing and editing the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
N/A
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Colyer-Patel, K., Romein, C., Kuhns, L. et al. Recent Evidence on the Relation Between Cannabis Use, Brain Structure, and Function: Highlights and Challenges. Curr Addict Rep 11, 371–383 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-024-00557-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-024-00557-z