Quantitative Electroencephalogram Abnormalities in Methamphetamine Dependence in Forensic Evaluation: Case Control Study

Sungyeon Hwang; Jonghyuk Choi; Mikyung Lyu; Sunbum Kim; Kiseong Kim; Jinhyeong Ahn

doi:10.7580/kjlm.2017.41.4.122

Journal List > Korean J Leg Med > v.41(4) > 1088007

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Hwang, Choi, Lyu, Kim, Kim, and Ahn: Quantitative Electroencephalogram Abnormalities in Methamphetamine Dependence in Forensic Evaluation: Case Control Study

Original Article

Korean Journal of Legal Medicine 2017; 41(4): 122-136.

Published online: 30 November 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7580/kjlm.2017.41.4.122

Quantitative Electroencephalogram Abnormalities in Methamphetamine Dependence in Forensic Evaluation: Case Control Study

Sungyeon Hwang¹, Jonghyuk Choi¹, Mikyung Lyu¹, Sunbum Kim², Kiseong Kim³, Jinhyeong Ahn⁴

¹Department of Psychiatry, The National Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, Gongju, Korea.

²Department of Social Welfare, The National Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, Gongju, Korea.

³Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea.

⁴Department of Psychiatry, The Anjung Paik Hospital, Pyeongtaek, Korea.

Correspondence to Sungyeon Hwang. Department of Psychiatry, The National Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, 253 Banpochogyo-gil, Banpo-myeon, Gongju 32621, Korea. Tel: +82-41-840-5459, Fax: +82-41-840-5498, mysy33@hanmail.net

Received 20 October 2017 Revised 9 November 2017 Accepted 22 November 2017

The Korean Society for Legal Medicine

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

In this study, we analyzed the quantitative electroencephalograms (EEGs) of forty-eight subjects (18 with methamphetamine dependence and 30 non-methamphetamine users as controls). Immediately following data collection, all personally identifying information was replaced with random numbers to prevent bias and protect privacy. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20.0 for MS Windows. To investigate the general characteristics of the demographic background of the study subjects, frequency and technical analyses were conducted. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine the difference in quantitative EEGs between methamphetamine users and non-methamphetamine users. Methamphetamine users demonstrated quantitative EEG abnormalities that were consistent with generalized encephalopathy.

Keywords: Methamphetamine, Addiction, Forensic medicine, Quantitative electroencephalograms

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the study samples (n=48)

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±SD.

Table 2

Absolute theta power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 3

Absolute alpha power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 4

Absolute fast alpha power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 5

Absolute high beta power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 6

Relative theta power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 7

Relative alpha power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 8

Relative beta power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.01.

Table 9

Relative gamma power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05.

Table 10

Relative slow alpha power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 11

Relative low beta power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 12

Relative mid beta power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 13

Relative high beta power profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 14

Ratio of sensorimotor rhythm to theta profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 15

Ratio of mid beta to theta profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 16

Ratio of (sensorimotor rhythm-mid beta) to theta profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.05; ^b)P<0.01.

Table 17

Ratio of alpha to high beta profile of methamphetamine dependance and normal control

^a)P<0.01; ^b)P<0.05.

Notes

^{Conflicts of Interest} No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

1. Simon SL, Domier C, Carnell J, et al. Cognitive impairment in individuals currently using methamphetamine. Am J Addict. 2000; 9:222–231.

2. Ahn KH, Sewell A, Elander J, et al. Role of GABA deficit in sensitivity to the psychotomimetic effects of amphetamine. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015; 40:2822–2831.

3. Chang L, Ernst T, Speck O, et al. Perfusion MRI and computerized cognitive test abnormalities in abstinent methamphetamine users. Psychiatry Res. 2002; 114:65–79.

4. Kalechstein AD, De la Garza R 2nd, Newton TF, et al. Quantitative EEG abnormalities are associated with memory impairment in recently abstinent methamphetamine-dependent individuals. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2009; 21:254–258.

5. Newton TF, Cook IA, Kalechstein AD, et al. Quantitative EEG abnormalities in recently abstinent methamphetamine dependent individuals. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003; 114:410–415.

6. Park CK, Kim DH, Cho SN, et al. Effect of biofeedback training in patients with methamphetamine dependence: preliminary study with qEEG. J Korean Acad Addict Psychiatry. 2012; 16:62–67.

7. Schutte I, Kenemans JL, Schutter D. Resting-state theta/beta EEG ratio is associated with reward- and punishment-related reversal learning. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2017; 06. 05. [Epub]. DOI: 10.3758/s13415-017-0510-3.

8. Barry RJ, Clarke AR, Johnstone SJ, et al. EEG differences between eyes-closed and eyes-open resting conditions. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007; 118:2765–2773.

9. Klimesch W. EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1999; 29:169–195.

10. Chaturvedi M, Hatz F, Gschwandtner U, et al. Quantitative EEG (QEEG) measures differentiate Parkinson's disease (PD) patients from healthy controls (HC). Front Aging Neurosci. 2017; 9:3.

11. Benz N, Hatz F, Bousleiman H, et al. Slowing of EEG background activity in Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease with early cognitive dysfunction. Front Aging Neurosci. 2014; 6:314.

12. Jasper HH. Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography: 1957. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1958; 10:370–375.

13. Kim K. The abbreviated word of EEG analysis index and its definition [Internet]. BioBrain;2016. cited 2017 Oct 30. Available from: http://biobraininc.blogspot.kr/.

14. Ersche KD, Clark L, London M, et al. Profile of executive and memory function associated with amphetamine and opiate dependence. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006; 31:1036–1047.

15. Barr AM, Panenka WJ, MacEwan GW, et al. The need for speed: an update on methamphetamine addiction. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2006; 31:301–313.

TOOLS

Similar articles