Abnormal maximal finger tapping in abstinent cannabis users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate movement speed and rhythmicity in abstinent cannabis users, we hypothesized that abstinent cannabis users exhibit decreased maximal finger tapping frequency and increased variability of tapping compared with non-drug users. METHODS: The study involved 10 healthy adult cannabis users and 10 age-matched and gender-matched controls with no history of illicit drug use. Subjects underwent a series of screening tests prior to participation. Subjects were then asked to tap a strain gauge as fast as possible with the index finger of their dominant hand (duration 5 s). RESULTS: The average intertap interval did not significantly differ between groups, but the coefficient of variation of the intertap interval was significantly greater in the cannabis group than in controls (p=0.011). The cannabis group also exhibited a slow tapping frequency at the beginning of the task. CONCLUSIONS: Rhythmicity of finger tapping is abnormal in individuals with a history of cannabis use. The abnormality appears to be long lasting and adds to the list of functional changes present in abstinent cannabis users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".