Dynamics of the accommodative response after smoking cannabis
MetadataShow full item record
AuthorOrtiz Peregrina, Sonia; Ortiz Herrera, Carolina; Martino, Francesco; Castro Torres, José Juan; González Anera, María Del Rosario
AccommodationAccommodation dynamicsAccommodative responseCannabisCigaretteTHCVision
Ortiz-Peregrina, S... [et al.]. Dynamics of the accommodative response after smoking cannabis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021; 41: 1097– 1109. [https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12851]
SponsorshipMinistry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain); European Commission FIS2017-85058-R; Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (Spain) FPU15/05571; Universidad de Granada/Consorcio de Bibliotecas Universitarias de Andalucia (CBUA)
Purpose: Cannabis is the most widely consumed illicit drug worldwide. It has been suggested that cannabis could generate blurred vision during reading tasks. The goal of this study was to objectively assess the acute effects of smoking cannabis on the dynamics of ocular accommodation. The influence of other factors, including target distance and the direction of accommodation, as well as personal characteristics, were also analysed. Methods: Nineteen young people who were occasional cannabis users participated in the study (mean age 22.53 [3.12] years). Their usage profiles were evaluated by means of the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-revised (CUDIT-r). The dynamics of the accommodative response were evaluated using an open-field auto refractor (Grand Seiko WAM-5500). The participants completed two different experimental sessions, one week apart, and in random order (baseline session and after smoking cannabis). During these sessions, the amplitude of the response (D), mean velocity (D/s), peak velocity (D/s), response time (s), accommodative lag (D) and accommodation variability (D) were measured. Results: The results indicated that cannabis use had a significant main effect on the mean accommodation/disaccommodation velocity (F1,13 = 7.21; p = 0.02; η 2 p = 0.396). Cannabis consumption also interacted significantly with other factors. Response time showed a significant two-way interaction between condition × target distance (F1,13 = 11.71; p = 0.005; η 2 p = 0.474) and condition × accommodation direction (F1,13 = 8.71; p = 0.01; η 2 p = 0.401). For mean velocity, two-way interactions were found between condition × age (F1,13 = 6.03; p = 0.03; η 2 p = 0.354), condition × CUDIT-r score (F1,13 = 6.03; p = 0.03; η 2 p = 0.356) and condition × target distance (F1,13 = 7.20; p = 0.02; η 2 p = 0.396). Conclusions: These findings suggest that cannabis use can alter the accommodation process, although further studies should be carried out to explore the role of attention deficits. According to these results, certain daily activities that depend on an accurate accommodative function may be affected by cannabis use.