Cannabis & Memory: Why Does THC Affect Short-Term Memory?

Forgetting what someone just said, losing your train of thought or struggling to remember a conversation from a few minutes ago is one of cannabis's most familiar effects. The explanation is more surprising than the stereotype suggests.

The Problem Isn't Always Forgetting. It's What Never Got Saved.

You smoke, someone tells you something, and a few minutes later you cannot remember what they said. It feels like a short-term memory failure. In many cases, though, the problem is not that a memory was made and then lost. It is that the memory was never properly formed in the first place.

Memory is not one single function. Different processes work together to create, maintain and retrieve information. Some processes create the record, others hold it briefly, and others recover it later.

One of the most important distinctions in cannabis research is the difference between episodic encoding and working memory.

Episodic encoding is the process of forming new memories of personal experiences and events. It is how the brain records what happened, when it happened and in what context.

Working memory is different. It temporarily holds and manipulates information that you are actively using, such as a phone number while you dial it or the items on a shopping list while you walk through a store.

THC can affect both, but they should not be confused. Its most consistently demonstrated acute effect is on episodic encoding — the formation of new memories. Working memory is affected moderately and less consistently.

A 2022 systematic meta-review by Dellazizzo and colleagues examined 71 effect sizes across 43,761 participants. Verbal learning and memory stood out as the most robustly impaired domains during acute intoxication.

The important distinction is that someone can remain aware of a conversation, understand what is being said and still fail to encode it. The information reaches the brain, but the process that turns it into a lasting memory does not complete the job.

The Brain Region Responsible for Writing New Memories

The hippocampus — the brain's gateway for writing new memories, and one of the densest sites of CB1 receptors in the brain. Illustration by explorebiology, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The hippocampus is one of the brain's most important structures for forming new memories of facts and events. It acts as a gateway between current experience and long-term storage.

Its importance became clear through the famous 1957 research of William Scoville and Brenda Milner.

They studied patients who had undergone bilateral medial temporal lobe damage. Despite retaining their intelligence, perception and past experiences, those patients could no longer retain current experience. New information simply did not become a lasting memory.

The research demonstrated that the hippocampus plays a critical role in forming new memories.

It also helps explain why THC has such a noticeable effect on memory.

The hippocampus contains exceptionally dense concentrations of CB1 cannabinoid receptors, as documented by Miles Herkenham and colleagues in 1990.

These receptors are part of the endocannabinoid system, which naturally helps regulate communication between neurons.

In 1997, Stella, Schweitzer and Piomelli characterized 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG), an endogenous cannabinoid involved in cannabinoid signaling and the regulation of hippocampal synaptic plasticity.

This is important because the brain already uses cannabinoid signaling to fine-tune the connections involved in learning and memory.

THC interacts with that same system.

What Happens When the Brain Tries to Save a Memory?

Creating a memory involves strengthening connections between neurons.

One important mechanism is called long-term potentiation, or LTP. It describes a lasting increase in the strength of communication between connected neurons.

A strong glutamate signal activating NMDA receptors is important for this process.

Think of it as the brain receiving an instruction to save information. The connection between neurons becomes stronger, helping preserve the experience.

But cannabinoid signaling can interfere with this process.

In 1999, Misner and Sullivan studied cannabinoid effects in rat hippocampal slices. They found that cannabinoid receptor activation could prevent long-term potentiation and long-term depression under normal experimental conditions by reducing presynaptic glutamate release below the level needed for sufficient postsynaptic depolarization and NMDA receptor activation — an inhibition that could be overcome by experimentally removing the magnesium block or depolarizing the postsynaptic membrane.

In other words, the signal needed to strengthen the connection was reduced.

The brain's instruction to save the information never properly fired.

Later research by Hoffman and colleagues examined chronic THC exposure in rats. They found that seven days of daily THC treatment abolished hippocampal LTP, that the blockade persisted for days after dosing, and that a CB1 receptor antagonist prevented it — lasting changes in synaptic plasticity in an animal model, not a proven equivalent timeline in humans.

THC essentially hijacks a system that normally operates locally and temporarily, activating cannabinoid receptors everywhere at once and for a much longer period.

Why Repeating Something While High Doesn't Necessarily Help

This is one of the most interesting findings in cannabis memory research.

For years, researchers have investigated whether THC interferes with remembering information or with storing it in the first place.

The distinction is critical.

In 1971, Edward Abel examined the question and proposed that marijuana primarily impaired acquisition, not retrieval.

Subsequent research by Darley and colleagues helped establish the difference.

In 1974, Darley's team found that marijuana interfered with the storage or encoding of information. The deficit survived even when rehearsal was equated.

Even when intoxicated participants rehearsed material as much as sober participants, the information still was not stored. Repeating something while high does not rescue the memory, because the failure is at the write step — the material was never properly written into memory.

The problem is not simply that the information disappears when someone tries to retrieve it later. The information was never stored in the first place.

A 1977 study by Darley and colleagues provided another important distinction: intoxicated participants recalled long-established common facts normally.

The findings supported the idea that THC affects the formation of new memories more than access to information learned earlier.

The Experiment That Separated Learning From Remembering

In 2017, Ranganathan and colleagues tested this distinction directly using intravenous THC and a verbal word-list test.

The study included 57 participants who learned information under THC and 38 who learned it before receiving THC. Sixteen participants took part in both experiments, so the two groups represent experiment-specific sample sizes rather than 95 unique participants.

The results were revealing.

Recall declined when participants received the word list while under THC. But when they learned the word list before receiving THC, recall was not impaired.

The researchers concluded that acute THC interferes with encoding verbal information without interfering with retrieval.

This is one of the clearest demonstrations of why someone can remember something they learned before getting high while struggling to remember something learned while high.

One question remains unresolved: whether THC also interferes with memory consolidation, the process that stabilizes a memory after encoding.

Brain imaging offers additional support for the encoding explanation. In a 2012 fMRI associative-memory study involving 13 participants, Bossong and colleagues found that THC reduced activity during the encoding phase.

THC Doesn't Just Weaken Memories. It Can Add False Ones.

Memory impairment is not limited to information being forgotten.

THC may also increase susceptibility to remembering information that was never actually presented.

In 2020, Kloft and colleagues published a randomized, double-blind controlled trial in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study included 64 participants and examined false-memory susceptibility through three different tasks: a word-list paradigm and two virtual-reality misinformation tasks.

Across these tests, THC consistently increased susceptibility to false memories.

The researchers also found that false recognition in the word-list task remained elevated in certain measures during a sober retest one week later.

However, the increased susceptibility to misinformation in the virtual-reality scenarios was mostly associated with the acute intoxication phase.

The findings suggest that THC can influence not only whether information gets stored, but also how accurately it is stored.

This is an important result, although the evidence needs further replication. Kloft's research is one strong randomized controlled trial, and replication remains limited.

How Long Does It Take for Memory to Recover?

One of the biggest questions for regular consumers is whether cannabis-related memory impairment lasts.

The answer depends on the frequency of use and the research being examined.

For occasional users, Curran and colleagues conducted a double-blind crossover study in 2002 involving 15 infrequent cannabis users.

Participants received oral THC at different doses.

At 15 mg, THC impaired episodic memory at peak effects, approximately two hours after administration.

On a three-trial word-learning task, researchers observed what they described as "no learning whatsoever."

Interestingly, implicit memory, measured through priming, remained preserved.

The researchers found no measurable memory effects at 24 or 48 hours.

That finding suggests that the acute memory effects observed in occasional users do not necessarily persist beyond the intoxication period.

What Happens After a Month Without Cannabis?

Heavy users present a different research question.

In 2001, Pope and colleagues examined neuropsychological performance in three groups:

• 63 current heavy cannabis users.
• 45 former heavy cannabis users.
• 72 control participants.

The researchers monitored abstinence over 28 days.

Current users initially performed below controls on word-list recall at days 0, 1 and 7.

The deficit tracked recent cannabis exposure, measured through urinary THC-COOH concentrations at the start of the study.

But the results changed over time.

By day 28, there were virtually no differences between the groups. Former heavy users did not significantly differ from controls on the assessed measures.

Another important finding was that memory performance was not associated with cumulative lifetime cannabis use.

The results suggest that recent exposure was more closely associated with the observed memory deficits than total lifetime use.

What Did the Larger Review Find?

In 2012, Schreiner and Dunn conducted a meta-analysis examining residual cognitive effects after prolonged abstinence.

They analyzed 13 studies involving:

• 388 cannabis users.
• 387 control participants.

All included studies examined abstinence periods of at least 25 days.

The researchers detected no statistically significant residual effects on global cognitive performance or in any of the eight cognitive domains tested.

This is important because it provides a broader view than any single abstinence study.

It also helps distinguish the well-established acute impairment of verbal learning from claims that verbal learning remains uniquely impaired after prolonged abstinence. The popular "everything recovers except verbal learning" carve-out is not from Schreiner and Dunn — verbal learning's special status is as the most robustly impaired domain acutely.

There is an important counterweight.

In 2002, Bolla and colleagues found dose-related neurocognitive deficits among very heavy cannabis users after 28 days of abstinence.

Whether those deficits would resolve with longer abstinence remains unknown.

The available human evidence therefore supports substantial recovery in many adults, but it does not support a claim of complete recovery for every heavy user.

Does Starting Young Change the Story?

The question becomes more complicated when researchers examine people who began using cannabis during adolescence.

The endocannabinoid system participates in brain development, including the formation of neuronal connections. CB1 receptors are present in axonal growth cones, where endocannabinoids act as cues guiding axon growth.

This has raised questions about whether repeated THC exposure during adolescence could have different consequences than exposure in adulthood.

One of the most widely discussed studies came from the Dunedin longitudinal research project.

The Eight-Point IQ Finding

In 2012, Meier and colleagues published findings from a cohort of 1,037 people whose cognitive function was measured at ages 13 and 38.

The researchers reported that persistent cannabis use was associated with broad neuropsychological decline.

The decline was concentrated among adolescent-onset users.

The frequently repeated eight-point IQ decline requires an important qualification.

Among the 23 participants who began using cannabis during adolescence and continued persistent use through age 38, the researchers observed an average decline of approximately eight IQ points between ages 13 and 38.

The researchers also reported that cessation did not fully restore functioning among adolescent-onset users.

These findings raised concerns about the potential consequences of persistent cannabis use beginning in adolescence.

But other researchers challenged the causal interpretation.

Was Cannabis Responsible, or Was Something Else Happening?

In 2013, Ole Rogeberg published an analysis arguing that socioeconomic status could explain the association.

His simulation demonstrated that socioeconomic confounding could reproduce the reported relationship with zero causal effect from cannabis.

The original research team, led by Moffitt and colleagues, responded that low socioeconomic status did not predict adolescent-onset dependence in the actual data.

They argued that controlling for socioeconomic status left the association unchanged.

The debate continued with research published in 2016.

What the Twin Studies Found

Jackson and colleagues examined two longitudinal twin cohorts.

Their research found that cannabis users experienced declines in crystallized intelligence in raw comparisons.

However, two findings complicated the interpretation.

First, there was no dose-response relationship.

Second, twins who used cannabis did not experience greater declines than their abstinent co-twins.

These results challenged the idea that cannabis exposure alone explained the cognitive differences.

The adolescent-onset question remains unresolved.

Meier's findings, Rogeberg's socioeconomic-confounding analysis, Moffitt's response and Jackson's twin studies all point in different directions.

The research does not justify presenting permanent cannabis-related IQ damage as proven. It also does not justify presenting adolescent cannabis use as proven harmless.

Can CBD Protect Your Memory From THC?

CBD is frequently discussed as a potential counterbalance to THC, but the research is more complicated than that suggestion implies.

Some studies have found protective effects under particular conditions. Others have not.

In 2010, Morgan and colleagues conducted a naturalistic study of 134 cannabis users who consumed products with different CBD content.

In the decisive comparison — 22 participants using high-CBD cannabis against 22 using low-CBD cannabis — the high-CBD group showed no prose-recall impairment while intoxicated, whereas the low-CBD group did.

However, the study was naturalistic and self-selected, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

What Happened When Researchers Tested CBD in the Laboratory?

In 2013, Englund and colleagues conducted a laboratory randomized controlled trial.

Participants received a large 600 mg oral CBD dose approximately 3.5 hours before intravenous THC.

Under those conditions, CBD reduced the episodic-memory decline associated with THC administration.

The measured decline changed from −10.6% to −0.4%.

That is a notable finding, but it involved a specific experimental dose and timing.

Other research using more realistic THC-to-CBD product ratios produced different results.

The Results Were Not Consistent With Ordinary Product Ratios

In 2018, Morgan and colleagues examined the individual and combined effects of THC and CBD.

Their study found that vaporized THC combined with CBD at a 2:1 CBD-to-THC ratio did not attenuate memory impairment.

In 2023, Englund and colleagues conducted a randomized, double-blind crossover trial examining 10 mg of THC combined with different CBD doses:

• 0 mg CBD.
• 10 mg CBD.
• 20 mg CBD.
• 30 mg CBD.

The ratios reached as high as 3:1 CBD to THC.

THC impaired delayed verbal recall, but none of the CBD doses significantly changed any outcome.

The findings demonstrate why CBD should not be treated as a universal shield against THC-related memory impairment.

Some controlled conditions have produced encouraging results, but those findings have not translated into consistent protection at ordinary product ratios.

Three Cannabis Memory Myths Worth Retiring

The research helps clarify several common claims.

Myth 1: THC deletes your memories.

The primary problem is usually not that THC erases stored memories. It interferes with encoding, the process of forming new ones. Something that was never properly saved cannot be deleted.

Myth 2: Cannabis permanently destroys memory in adults.

Human abstinence research does not support this as a general conclusion. Memory deficits often track recent use and largely clear within about a month in many adults, according to Pope (2001) and Schreiner and Dunn (2012).

Myth 3: Repeating something while high saves it.

Darley and colleagues demonstrated that rehearsal did not necessarily overcome the storage deficit. Even when high participants rehearsed as much as sober participants, the material was still not stored.

The Real Difference Between Forgetting and Never Remembering

THC's relationship with memory is more specific than the familiar stereotype of being forgetful.

The strongest evidence points toward interference with the formation of new memories, particularly episodic encoding. Working memory is affected moderately and less consistently, while retrieval of previously learned information appears largely intact.

The hippocampus plays a central role because it contains dense concentrations of CB1 receptors and depends on precise glutamate signaling to strengthen the connections that store experiences.

THC disrupts that process.

Human studies demonstrate acute impairment, while animal experiments help explain the underlying biological mechanism. Recovery research suggests that many adults recover substantially after abstinence, although very heavy users and adolescent-onset users present unresolved questions.

The next time someone says cannabis makes them forget everything, there is a more precise explanation.

Sometimes the brain isn't forgetting what happened.

It never finished saving it.

Read next

Your Brain on THC: This Is What Happens When a Fat-Loving Molecule Hits the Brainarticles · Nov 6, 2026Anandamide: The Bliss Molecule Your Body Makes Itselfarticles · Nov 5, 2026

Sources

1. Scoville, William Beecher, and Brenda Milner. "Loss of Recent Memory after Bilateral Hippocampal Lesions." *Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry*, vol. 20, no. 1, 1957, pp. 11–21, doi:10.1136/jnnp.20.1.11. Documents the importance of the medial temporal lobe, particularly the hippocampal region, in forming new memories through observations of patients with bilateral medial temporal lobe resections.
2. Herkenham, Miles, et al. "Cannabinoid Receptor Localization in Brain." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, vol. 87, no. 5, 1990, pp. 1932–1936, doi:10.1073/pnas.87.5.1932. Documents the distribution of cannabinoid receptors throughout the brain, including their high concentration in the hippocampus.
3. Matsuda, Lloyd A., et al. "Structure of a Cannabinoid Receptor and Functional Expression of the Cloned cDNA." *Nature*, vol. 346, 1990, pp. 561–564, doi:10.1038/346561a0. Reports the cloning and characterization of the CB1 cannabinoid receptor.
4. Stella, Nephi, Paul Schweitzer, and Daniele Piomelli. "A Second Endogenous Cannabinoid That Modulates Long-Term Potentiation." *Nature*, vol. 388, 1997, pp. 773–778, doi:10.1038/42015. Identifies 2-AG and examines its role in modulating hippocampal long-term potentiation.
5. Misner, Daniel L., and Jane M. Sullivan. "Mechanism of Cannabinoid Effects on Long-Term Potentiation and Depression in Hippocampal CA1 Neurons." *Journal of Neuroscience*, vol. 19, no. 16, 1999, pp. 6795–6805, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-16-06795.1999. Provides experimental evidence that cannabinoid activation interferes with hippocampal synaptic plasticity.
6. Hoffman, Alexander F., et al. "Opposing Actions of Chronic Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabinoid Antagonists on Hippocampal Long-Term Potentiation." *Learning & Memory*, vol. 14, nos. 1–2, 2007, pp. 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.439007 Examines chronic THC exposure and its effects on hippocampal LTP in rats.
7. Bossong, Matthijs G., et al. "Effects of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Administration on Human Encoding and Recall Memory Function: A Pharmacological fMRI Study." *Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience*, vol. 24, no. 3, 2012, pp. 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00156 Uses fMRI to examine how THC changes brain activity during associative-memory encoding.
8. Abel, Ernest L. "Marihuana and Memory: Acquisition or Retrieval?" *Science*, vol. 173, 1971, pp. 1038–1040. Frames the acquisition-versus-retrieval question in marijuana and memory research.
9. Darley, Charles F., J. R. Tinklenberg, W. T. Roth, and R. C. Atkinson. "The Nature of Storage Deficits and State-Dependent Retrieval under Marihuana." *Psychopharmacologia*, vol. 37, no. 4, 1974, pp. 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00437420 Examines marijuana's effects on storage and retrieval processes, including equated rehearsal.
10. Darley, Charles F., J. R. Tinklenberg, W. T. Roth, S. Vernon, and B. S. Kopell. "Marijuana Effects on Long-Term Memory Assessment and Retrieval." *Psychopharmacology*, vol. 52, no. 3, 1977, pp. 239–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00426706 Examines recall of long-established material under marijuana intoxication.
11. Curran, H. Valerie, et al. "Cognitive and Subjective Dose-Response Effects of Acute Oral Δ9-THC in Infrequent Cannabis Users." *Psychopharmacology*, vol. 164, 2002, pp. 61–70, doi:10.1007/s00213-002-1169-0. Examines dose-dependent memory effects of oral THC, including episodic memory impairment, preserved implicit memory and no effects at 24 or 48 hours.
12. D'Souza, Deepak C., et al. "The Psychotomimetic Effects of Intravenous Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Healthy Individuals: Implications for Psychosis." *Neuropsychopharmacology*, vol. 29, no. 8, 2004, pp. 1558–1572. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1300496 Documents the effects of intravenous THC on immediate and delayed word recall, recognition memory and intrusion errors.
13. Ranganathan, Mohini, and Deepak C. D'Souza. "The Acute Effects of Cannabinoids on Memory in Humans: A Review." *Psychopharmacology*, vol. 188, 2006, pp. 425–444, doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0508-y. Reviews human research on acute cannabinoid exposure and memory functioning.
14. Ranganathan, Mohini, et al. "Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Impairs Encoding but Not Retrieval of Verbal Information." *Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry*, vol. 79, pt. B, 2017, pp. 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.06.019 Directly examines encoding versus retrieval using intravenous THC and verbal word-list testing.
15. Block, Robert I., et al. "Effects of Frequent Marijuana Use on Memory-Related Cerebral Blood Flow and Verbal Learning." *Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior*, vol. 72, no. 1–2, 2002, pp. 237–250, doi:10.1016/S0091-3057(01)00771-7. Examines frequent cannabis use, cerebral blood flow associated with memory and verbal learning.
16. Kloft, Laura, et al. "Cannabis Increases Susceptibility to False Memory." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, vol. 117, no. 9, 2020, pp. 4585–4589, doi:10.1073/pnas.1920162117. Reports randomized controlled evidence that THC increases susceptibility to false memories across word-list and virtual-reality tasks.
17. Pope, Harrison G., Jr., et al. "Neuropsychological Performance in Long-Term Cannabis Users." *Archives of General Psychiatry*, vol. 58, no. 10, 2001, pp. 909–915, doi:10.1001/archpsyc.58.10.909. Examines cognitive performance during 28 days of monitored abstinence among current heavy users, former heavy users and controls.
18. Bolla, Karen I., et al. "Dose-Related Neurocognitive Effects of Marijuana Use." *Neurology*, vol. 59, no. 9, 2002, pp. 1337–1343. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.WNL.0000031422.66442.49 Reports dose-related neurocognitive deficits among very heavy cannabis users following 28 days of abstinence.
19. Schreiner, Amy M., and Michael E. Dunn. "Residual Effects of Cannabis Use on Neurocognitive Performance after Prolonged Abstinence: A Meta-Analysis." *Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology*, vol. 20, no. 5, 2012, pp. 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029117 Reviews residual cognitive effects after prolonged abstinence, finding no significant residual effect on global performance or on any of the eight cognitive domains tested.
20. Dellazizzo, Laura, Stéphane Potvin, Sabrina Giguère, and Alexandre Dumais. "Evidence on the Acute and Residual Neurocognitive Effects of Cannabis Use in Adolescents and Adults: A Systematic Meta-Review of Meta-Analyses." *Addiction*, vol. 117, no. 7, 2022, pp. 1857–1870. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15764 Synthesizes evidence on acute and residual cognitive effects, including the relative consistency of verbal learning and memory impairment acutely.
21. McCartney, Daniel, et al. "Determining the Magnitude and Duration of Acute Δ9-THC-Induced Driving and Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review." *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, vol. 126, 2021, pp. 175–193. Reviews the magnitude and duration of acute Δ9-THC-induced driving and cognitive impairment.
22. Bourque, Josiane, and Stéphane Potvin. "Cannabis and Cognitive Functioning: From Acute to Residual Effects, From Randomized Controlled Trials to Prospective Designs." *Frontiers in Psychiatry*, vol. 12, 2021, article 596601. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.596601 Reviews acute and residual cognitive effects associated with cannabis use.
23. Broyd, Samantha J., et al. "Acute and Chronic Effects of Cannabinoids on Human Cognition — A Systematic Review." *Biological Psychiatry*, vol. 79, no. 7, 2016, pp. 557–567. Reviews acute and chronic effects of cannabinoids on human cognition.
24. Meier, Madeline H., et al. "Persistent Cannabis Users Show Neuropsychological Decline from Childhood to Midlife." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, vol. 109, no. 40, 2012, pp. E2657–E2664, doi:10.1073/pnas.1206820109. Presents the Dunedin cohort findings on persistent cannabis use, adolescent-onset exposure and neuropsychological decline.
25. Rogeberg, Ole. "Correlations between Cannabis Use and IQ Change in the Dunedin Cohort Are Consistent with Confounding from Socioeconomic Status." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, vol. 110, no. 11, 2013, pp. 4251–4254, doi:10.1073/pnas.1215678110. Challenges the causal interpretation of the Dunedin findings by demonstrating how socioeconomic confounding could reproduce the association.
26. Moffitt, Terrie E., Madeline H. Meier, Avshalom Caspi, and Richie Poulton. "Reply to Rogeberg and Daly: No Evidence That Socioeconomic Status or Personality Differences Confound the Association between Cannabis Use and IQ Decline." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, vol. 110, no. 11, 2013, pp. E980–E982. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1300618110 Presents the Dunedin research team's response to the socioeconomic-confounding argument.
27. Jackson, Nicholas J., et al. "Impact of Adolescent Marijuana Use on Intelligence: Results from Two Longitudinal Twin Studies." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, vol. 113, no. 5, 2016, pp. E500–E508, doi:10.1073/pnas.1516648113. Examines cannabis use and intelligence in two longitudinal twin cohorts, including comparisons between using twins and their abstinent co-twins.
28. Morgan, C. J. A., et al. "Impact of Cannabidiol on the Acute Memory and Psychotomimetic Effects of Smoked Cannabis: Naturalistic Study." *British Journal of Psychiatry*, vol. 197, no. 4, 2010, pp. 285–290, doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077503. Examines differences in memory impairment among cannabis users consuming products with different CBD content.
29. Englund, A., et al. "Cannabidiol Inhibits THC-Elicited Paranoid Symptoms and Hippocampal-Dependent Memory Impairment." *Journal of Psychopharmacology*, vol. 27, no. 1, 2013, pp. 19–27, doi:10.1177/0269881112460109. Examines the effects of CBD pretreatment on THC-related episodic-memory impairment under controlled laboratory conditions.
30. Morgan, C. J. A., et al. "Individual and Combined Effects of Acute Delta-9-THC and Cannabidiol on Psychotomimetic Symptoms and Memory Function." *Translational Psychiatry*, vol. 8, 2018, article 181, doi:10.1038/s41398-018-0191-x. Examines combined THC and CBD exposure, including whether CBD attenuates THC-related memory impairment.
31. Englund, A., et al. "Does Cannabidiol Make Cannabis Safer? A Randomised, Double-Blind, Cross-Over Trial of Cannabis with Four Different CBD:THC Ratios." *Neuropsychopharmacology*, vol. 48, 2023, pp. 869–876, doi:10.1038/s41386-022-01478-z. Tests different CBD-to-THC ratios and their effects on memory and other outcomes, finding no significant CBD effect on any outcome.