Search

Background: Cannabis is one of the most popular drugs of the 21st century, especially among adolescents and young adults. Evidence of a variety of lasting neuropsychological deficits as a result of chronic cannabis use has increased. Furthermore, regular cannabis use is found to be a predictor of mental health problems, less motivation in school, and school dropout., Aim: Our goal is to propose a theoretical model of adolescent cannabis use disorder (CUD) based on Zinberg's drug, set, and setting model and explicated by a review of the literature on adolescent cannabis use to improve the prevention and treatment of CUD for adolescents., Methods: PubMed and Web of Science were searched for relevant publications as part of a hypothesis-based and model-generating review., Results: Individual (set) and environmental (setting) risk factors play important roles in the development of CUD in adolescents. School performance, motivation, and attendance can be negatively influenced by persistent cannabis use patterns and adolescent brain development can consequently be impaired. Thus, cannabis use can be understood as both being the cause of poor school performance but also the consequence of poor school performance. To prevent and reduce adolescent CUD the drug, set, and setting must all be considered. It is important to notice that the multiple feedback loops (indicated in our dynamic interaction model) are not mutually exclusive, but offer important intervention focus points for social workers, addiction professionals, parents, and other care takers., Conclusion: We argue that the three dimensions of drug, set, and setting contribute significantly to the eventual manifestation of CUD. Based on our dynamic interaction model, recommendations are made for possible preventive and therapeutic interventions for the treatment of adolescents and young adults with CUD., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Number sense and working memory contribute to mathematical development throughout primary school. However, it is still unclear how the contributions of each of these predictors may change across development and whether the cognitive contribution is the same for children with and without mathematical difficulties. The aim of the two studies in this paper was to shed light on these topics. In a cross-sectional design, a typically developing group of children (study 1; N = 459, Grades 1-4) and a group with mathematical difficulties (study 2; N = 61, Grades 4-6) completed a battery of number sense and working memory tests, as well as a measure of arithmetic competence. Results of study 1 indicated that number sense was important in first grade, while working memory gained importance in second grade, before predictive value of both predictors waned. Number sense and working memory supported mathematics development independently from one another from Grade 1. Analysis of task demands showed that typically developing children rely on comprehension and visualization of quantity-to-number associations in early development. Later in development, pupils rely on comparing larger numerals and working memory until automatization. Children with mathematical difficulties were less able to employ number sense during mathematical operations, and thus might remain dependent on their working memory resources during arithmetic tasks. This suggests that children with mathematical difficulties need aid to employ working memory for mathematics from an early age to be able to automatize mathematical abilities later in development.

The goal of the present study was to test whether the amount of coaching influenced the results of working memory training on both visual and verbal working memory. Additionally, the effects of the working memory training on the amount of progress after specific training in mathematics were evaluated. In this study, 23 children between 9 and 12 years of age with both attentional and mathematical difficulties participated in a working memory training program with a high amount of coaching, while another 25 children received no working memory training. Results of these groups were compared to 21 children who completed the training with a lower amount of coaching. The quality of working memory, as well as mathematic skills, were measured three times using untrained transfer tasks. Bayesian statistics were used to test informative hypotheses. After receiving working memory training, the highly coached group performed better than the group that received less coaching on visual working memory and mathematics, but not on verbal working memory. The highly coached group retained their advantage in mathematics, even though the effect on visual working memory decreased. However, no added effect of working memory training was found on the learning curve during mathematical training. Moreover, the less-coached group was outperformed by the group that did not receive working memory training, both in visual working memory and mathematics. These results suggest that motivation and proper coaching might be crucial for ensuring compliance and effects of working memory training, and that far transfer might be possible., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The goal of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate whether Jungle Memory working memory training (JM) affects performance on working memory tasks, performance in mathematics and gains made on a mathematics training (MT) in school aged children between 9-12 years old ( N = 64) with both difficulties in mathematics, as well as attention and working memory. Children were randomly assigned to three groups and were trained in two periods: (1) JM first, followed by MT, (2) MT first, followed by JM, and (3) a control group that received MT only. Bayesian analyses showed possible short term effects of JM on near transfer measures of verbal working memory, but none on visual working memory. Furthermore, support was found for the hypothesis that children that received JM first, performed better after MT than children who did not follow JM first or did not train with JM at all. However, these effects could be explained at least partly by frequency of training effects, possibly due to motivational issues, and training-specific factors. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the effects found on improving mathematics were actually mediated by gains in working memory. It is argued that JM might not train the components of working memory involved in mathematics sufficiently. Another possible explanation can be found in the training's lack of adaptivity, therefore failing to provide the children with tailored instruction and feedback. Finally, it was hypothesized that, since effect sizes are generally small, training effects are bound to a critical period in development.