"NAME THE OPPOSITE OF THE RED" TEST
IN DRUG-ADDICTS AND IN
By Renato COCCHi, neurologist and medical
psychologist
Abstract
A
group of heroin and cocaine addicts (43 Ss,
This
result confirms that these addictive drugs, like alcohol, can act on half-brain
dominance at least by lowering the suppression mechanism that avoids a clear
emergency of the non-dominant half-brain opposite engram
during any perception.
Key
words: Drug addiction; Half-brain dominance; "Name the opposite of the
Red" test, opposite engram, suppression.
In my
speculative paper on possible defective half-brain dominance and cognitive
behaviour I reported a quick test I often use. "If hyperemotive
subjects are asked to reply immediately without stopping to dwell on the
question "What is the opposite of red?", many of them reply
"Green". Asked to give a reason for their answer they are at a loss.
True depressives generally answer "Black" (which is in fact the
opposite of white).
The
test has also proved to be positive with opiate drug addicts, hyperkinetic
children and in cases of mental anorexia " (Cocchi,
1994)
Since
for some years many drug addicts came to our hospital for detoxification I
collected many unpublished data on them. In all they I applied the "Name
the opposite of the Red" Test. Now I aim to survey the answers they gave
to that test and then I compare the results to what normal persons replied when
I applied the same test.
Subjects, materials and methods
I
compared two groups of subjects, of which drug-addicts make up the Group 1 and
control subjects the group 2.
Group
1 features: 43 Ss (
Group
2 features: 61 Ss (
Statistics:
Results
Gender
distribution comparison: Group 1:
Average
age comparison: 28,16 +/- 6.59 vs 27.79 +/- 5.56
years; "t" = 0.309 with 102 df and p =
0.758 NS
Average
schooling comparison: 10.40 +/- 2.78 vs 12.34 +/- 4.19
years; "t" = -2.631 with 102 df, 95% CI
from -3.39 to -0.49 and p = 0.009. The control group significantly had more
years schooling.
"Green"
answers comparison: 34 out of 43 (79.07%) vs 15 out
of 61 (24.59%); <> 0.545, SE = 0.099 with 95% CI for the difference: from
0.350 to 0.740; Poisson's "z" = 5.282 and p = 0.0009. Drug addicts
have significantly higher prevalence of "green" answers to the
"Name the opposite of Red" Test than normal subjects.
Discussion
The
"Name the opposite of the Red" Test came out from a well-known
phenomenon.
There
is a famous neuropsychological experiment that, however, never found an
adequate explanation. If we stare at a red surface for some minutes, and then
shift our gaze immediately to a white surface, for a fraction of a second we
see the colour green. But green is the complementary colour, ie. the opposite of red.
If we
accept the idea of coexistence of the opposite as true, we can argue that the
dominant hemisphere correctly perceives the red colour. The non-dominant hemisphere
perceives the red stimulus as green, but this phenomenon is habitually
suppressed and does not seem influencing our perception. When moving the eye to
a white surface (which represents the complete absence of colour) the dominant
hemisphere adapts straight away. The non-dominant side, which is slower in
processing stimuli, shows its residual image (green) for a fraction of a
second. This is presented as belonging to the second surface, the white one,
while really it is still the product of the opposite as a result of the red
surface stimulus.
In the
same paper I asked myself with some questions about the behaviour of drug
addicts.
"Whoever
has had anything to do with drug addicts has surely come up against a
despairing and very frequent behaviour. Is the continual opposition between
what they say and what they do merely a clumsy defence of the "self",
when their drug addictive behaviour can still be doubted? When there is no
doubt about their addictive behaviour, is the contrast between what the addict
says and does just a problem of lack of faith?
Toxic
substances though, can activate the counter-side hemisphere, or at least some
of its functions. It is possible therefore that the dissociation between promises
and behaviour, between saying and doing, may also correspond with two different
ways of activating the two cerebral hemispheres.
The
"rational" responses could be more to do with activation of the left
hemisphere, the centre (in righthanders) of verbal
processing. Emotional processing is, conversely, more linked to the nonverbal
hemisphere and bad working in many persons. Exogenous additive substances may
stimulate the functioning of the non-dominant hemisphere. So they could affect
the "compensatory mechanisms", which are always of an emotional kind,
without apparently interfering with the mechanisms governing rational thought.
It is
worthy to note that the administering of the MMPI to drug addicts often
produces a massive presence of so-called schizophrenic responses, although the
subjects are not schizophrenic (Magnini 1994): personal
communication)."
Having
finally verified this last suggestion, we found that one-year abstinent drug
addicts show psychotic traits in answering to MMPI like non-addicts psychotics
do. (Cocchi and Magnini,
2001).
So we
discussed this result. "To come back to psychotic traits of ex-drug
addicts, we think they could have used the drug as a bad self-medication. This
is what one of us suggested about 25 years ago. (Cocchi
and Tornati 1977)
Somehow
the drug could allow the control of a half-brain unstable dominance that
otherwise should have driven to heavier risks. We know that substances of abuse
like alcohol can act on the half-brain dominance, and increase opposition
answers, a clear sign of the not dominant half-brain use. (Cocchi
1994; Cocchi, 1999)".
As for
the two groups surveyed here, they do not significantly differ for gender
distribution and average age, but the control group significantly had more
average years schooling. This last datum could put in a bias in the control
group. More schooling could have raised the rate of people knowing the right
answer because they had learnt it during physics lessons of optics.
The
control group could have a second bias because the subjects were chosen as
normal on their word. Some of them could have genetic predispositions for the
same psychiatric illness or alcoholism like their relative inpatient.
This
second bias too could have put within the normals,
subjects not exactly so, and then the "green" answers could have been
more than expected.
But
the prevalence of "green" answers, in drug addicts, is so
significantly higher that I maintain these two possible biases as fully
negligible.
This
result confirms that opiates and cocaine, like alcohol, can act on half-brain
dominance at least by lowering the suppression mechanism that avoids a clear
emergency of the opposite engram.
Conclusion
Compered to a group of normal subjects, a group of opiate and cocaine
addicts showed significantly higher prevalence of "green" answers to
the "Name the opposite of Red" test. A result like this confirms what
I wrote, as an anecdotal note, in my speculative paper on possible defective
half-brain dominance and cognitive behaviour (Cocchi,
1994). Drugs of addiction, like alcohol, can modify half-brain dominance at
least by lowering the suppression mechanism that avoids a clear eliciting of
the opposite engram from the non-dominant half-brain.
References
Cocchi R.: The re-analysis of the wrong answers at Raven's
Coloured Matrices by alcoholics: A final overview. It. J. Intellect. Impair
1999, 12: 49-57
Cocchi R., Tornati A.: Psychic dependence? A different
formulation of the problem with a view to the reorientation of therapy for
chronic drug addicts. Acta Psychiat.
Scand. 1977, 56: 337-346.
First published on
Internet on 15.07.2001 Copyright by R. Cocchi, 2001
Author's address: dr Renato Cocchi, via Rabbeno,
3
42100 Reggio Emilia( Italy )
renatococchi@libero.it
Theoretical and research bases
Clinical
cases
Italian translation
Home
Page