Effects of recent cannabis consumption on eye-tracking and pupillometry
Front Neurosci. 2024 Apr 9;18:1358491. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1358491. eCollection 2024.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Cannabis consumption is known to immediately affect ocular and oculomotor function, however, cannabis consumption is also known to affect it for a prolonged period of time. The purpose of this study is to identify an eye tracking or pupillometry metric which is affected after recent cannabis consumption but is not confounded by cannabis consumption history or demographic variables.
METHODS: Quasi-experimental design. Participants who would consume inhalable cannabis (n = 159, mean age 31.0 years, 54% male) performed baseline neurobehavioral testing and eye-function assessments when they were sober. Eye function assessments included eye-tracking [gaze (point of visual focus), saccades (smooth movement)] and pupillometry. Participants then inhaled cannabis until they self-reported to be high and performed the same assessment again. Controls who were cannabis naïve or infrequent users (n = 30, mean age 32.6 years, 57% male) performed the same assessments without consuming cannabis in between.
RESULTS: Cannabis significantly affected several metrics of pupil dynamics and gaze. Pupil size variability was the most discriminant variable after cannabis consumption. This variable did not change in controls on repeat assessment (i.e., no learning effect), did not correlate with age, gender, race/ethnicity, or self-reported level of euphoria, but did correlate with THC concentration of cannabis inhaled.
DISCUSSION: A novel eye-tracking metric was identified that is affected by recent cannabis consumption and is not different from non-users at baseline. A future study that assesses pupil size variability at multiple intervals over several hours and quantifies cannabis metabolites in biofluids should be performed to identify when this variable normalizes after consumption and if it correlates with blood THC levels.
PMID:38655106 | PMC:PMC11036868 | DOI:10.3389/fnins.2024.1358491