Cited by 117Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Methamphetamine dependence and neuropsychological functioning: evaluating change during early abstinence

Open access
Simon, Sara L., Dean, Andy C., Cordova, Xochitl, Monterosso, John R., London, Edythe D.·2010·Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to assess neuropsychological functioning of individuals in early abstinence from methamphetamine dependence and to test for cognitive change over the first month of abstinence. METHOD: Methamphetamine-dependent subjects in very early abstinence from methamphetamine (4-9 days; n = 27) were compared with healthy comparison subjects (n = 28) on a test battery that evaluated five cognitive domains (attention/processing speed, learning/memory, working memory, timed executive functioning, and untimed executive functioning). A subsample of the methamphetamine-dependent subjects (n =18), who maintained abstinence for 1 month, as well as a subsample of the comparison subjects (n = 21), were retested. RESULTS: At the first assessment, the methamphetamine-dependent subjects showed significantly worse performance than the comparison group on a test of processing speed; they also performed 0.31 SDs worse than the control group on a global battery composite score (p < .05). After a month of abstinence, methamphetamine-dependent subjects demonstrated slightly more cognitive improvement than healthy control subjects on the entire cognitive battery, but this difference did not approach statistical significance (p = .33). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that methamphetamine-dependent subjects do not show considerable cognitive gains in the first month of abstinence. A greater length of abstinence may be needed for cognitive improvement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15288/jsad.2010.71.335

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The experience of late protracted withdrawal is linked to mild cognitive dysfunction, particularly in functions involving memory and executive function.

    “The experience of this longer, subtle phase of withdrawal is linked to mild cognitive dysfunction (33, 34), particularly in functions involving memory and executive function.”

    From Clinical management of psychostimulant withdrawal: review of the evidence (2023) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports mildly lowered cognitive scores in methamphetamine-dependent participants during early abstinence. But this study followed participants only through the first month, not a late protracted withdrawal phase. The First assessment section (page unavailable) found a significant difference in attention/processing speed, while memory and executive-function differences did not reach significance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Methamphetamine-dependent subjects show impaired cognitive abilities (attention, memory, and executive functions) after one month or less of abstinence.

    “Methamphetaminedependent subjects show impaired cognitive abilities (i.e., attention, memory, and executive functions) after one month or less of abstinence (Monterosso et al., 2005; Simon et al., 2010).”

    From Predictive coding in neuropsychiatric disorders: a systematic transdiagnostic review. (2025) · cites this paper as Simon et al., 2010

    The First assessment section reports worse overall battery performance and a significant weakness on one attention/processing-speed test after 4–9 days of abstinence. Learning/memory and timed executive-functioning differences were only trends, not significant findings; the Discussion reports no significant improvement in any domain after about one month. The paper therefore does not establish impairment in all three named domains. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bornstein, R. A. (1985). Normative data on selected neuropsychological measures from a nonclinical sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 651-658.
  2. Buschke, H. (1973). Selective reminding of analyses of memory and learn- ing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 543-550.
  3. Jaffe, C., Bush, K. R., Sraits-Troster, K., Meredith, C., Romwall, L., Rosen- baum, G., … Saxon, A. J. (2005). A comparison of methamphetamine- dependent inpatients with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptomatology. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 24, 133-152.
  4. Satz, P. (1993). Brain reserve and capacity on symptom onset after brain injury: A formulation and review of evidence for threshold theory. Neuropsychology, 7, 273-295.
  5. Ward, M. F., Wender, P. H., & Reimherr, F. W. (1993). The Wender Utah Rating Scale: An aid in the retrospective diagnosis of childhood at- tention deficit hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 885-890.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simon, S. L., Dean, A. C., Cordova, X., Monterosso, J. R., & London, E. D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
Published
2010-05
Volume
71
Issue
3
Pages
335-344
ISSN
  • 1937-1888 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-4114
OpenAlex
W2094075971
Cited by
117
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA015179, DA-50038, DA 15179, P20DA022539, DA 022539, R01DA020726, DA 020726)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
methamphetamine dependence, early abstinence, cognitive recovery, neuropsychological performance, processing speed, attention, working memory, executive function, learning and memory, drug addiction
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition Disorders, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Memory Disorders, Methamphetamine, Neuropsychological Tests, Time Factors, Case-Control Studies, Amphetamine-Related Disorders, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review