Impact of Cannabinoid Type 1 Receptor Modulation on Risky Decision-Making

ABSTRACTRecent changes in policy regarding cannabis in the U.S. have been accompanied by an increase in the prevalence of cannabis use and a reduction in the perceived harms associated with consumption. However, little is understood regarding the effects of cannabinoids on cognitive processes. Given that deficient risk-taking is commonly observed in individuals suffering from substance use disorders (SUDs), we assessed the impact of manipulating cannabinoid type 1 receptors (CB1Rs; the primary target for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol in the brain) on punishment-based risk-taking using the risky decision-making task (RDT) in male Long-Evans rats. The RDT measures preference for small, safe rewards over large, risky rewards associated with an escalating chance of foot shock. Systemic bidirectional CB1R manipulation with a CB1R agonist, CB1R antagonist, and FAAH inhibitor (which increases overall endocannabinoid tone) did not alter overt risk-taking in the RDT. Interestingly, direct CB1R agonism, but not indirect CB1R stimulation or CB1R blockade, resulted in reduction in latency to make risky choices while not altering safe choice latency. Our findings suggest that CB1R activation expedites engagement in punishment based risk-taking without affecting overall preference for risky vs. safe options. This indicates that risk preference and rate of deliberation for risk-taking are influenced by distinct neural substrates, an important consideration for development of precise treatments targeting the aberrant risk-taking typical of SUD symptomology.

Deity Representation: A Prototype Approach

This research systematically evaluates via prototype analysis how conceptualizations of Western adult's monotheistic God are structured. Over 4 studies, using U.S. student and community samples of predominantly Christians, features of God are identified, feature centrality is documented, and centrality influence on cognition is evaluated. Studies 1 and 2 produced considerable overlap in feature frequency and centrality ratings across the samples, with “God is love” being the most frequently listed central feature. In Studies 3 (choice latency) and 4 (recall and recognition memory), the centrality of features influenced cognitive processes: central features were more quickly identified as features of God than peripheral features; were correctly recognized more often; and central features were correctly recalled more often than peripheral features. Results indicated that participants meaningfully judged centrality and that centrality affected cognition. Thus, the two criteria necessary for demonstrating deity representations adhere to a prototype structure were met. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Reversal of Stroop Test: Interference in Word Reading

It appears that a component of verbal reaction time, response-choice latency, exists for encoded words as well as colors. Therefore, it was hypothesized that color stimuli could exert a disruptive influence on the processes of this latency to encoded word stimuli in contrast to the reverse effect which has often been found in the standard Stroop test. Stroop-like interference in word reading was produced by preexposure of color names printed in colored ink, followed by the presentation of a second stimulus which reinforced the color information of the first stimulus. The experimental results do not appear to be an artifact of mere distraction of attention.

Choice Behavior as a Function of Stimulus Exposure

Two studies which showed significant extra-maze pre-exposure effects are reported. In Exp. 1 hooded rats were exposed to one stimulus and then given a choice between that stimulus and a non-exposed stimulus. Exposure brightness and exposure time were varied and number of changes between the two stimulus areas and time spent in each area were measured. In Exp. 2 rats were exposed to a stimulus and then given a choice between the same area, an area with a similar stimulus and an area with a dissimilar stimulus. Both exposure brightness and exposure time affected choice latency and time in the dissimilar area.