Aversive conditioning by psychoactive drugs: Effects of morphine, alcohol and chlordiazepoxide

Cappell, Howard; LeBlanc, A. E.; Endrényi, László

doi:10.1007/bf00414038

Cited by 202 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…S. Miller et aI., 1990) and others (Cappell, LeBlanc, & Endrenyi, 1973;Van der Kooy & Phillips, 1977). However, the failure to find taste aversion to the 1% salt solution was surprising.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Second-order conditioning detects unexpressed morphine-induced salt aversion

Bevins

Delzer

Bardo

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphine failed to condition a salt taste aversion at a dose (15 rug/kg) sufficient to produce a robust aversion to a saccharin taste. Indeed, three different concentrations of salt (1%, 1.5%, and 2%) paired with the same morphine dose yielded no direct evidence for conditioned aversion. Yet, when a novel saccharin taste was paired in compound with the previously conditioned salt conditioned stimulus, we found evidence for a conditioning to the saccharin cue alone in three separate experiments. Control groups eliminated alternative accounts such as neophobia and differential exposure to morphine. Combined, these findings indicate that morphine conditioned a salt aversion. Although this aversion was not directly expressed, a second-order conditioning procedure was able to provide a more sensitive index of conditioning.In the conditioned taste aversion preparation, a taste conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an illnessinducing unconditioned stimulus (US) such as LiCI or radiation. The use of this preparation by researchers has made important contributions to the fields of animal learning, psychopharmacology, pharmacology, toxicology, and biomedicine.

show abstract

“…S. Miller et aI., 1990) and others (Cappell, LeBlanc, & Endrenyi, 1973;Van der Kooy & Phillips, 1977). However, the failure to find taste aversion to the 1% salt solution was surprising.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Second-order conditioning detects unexpressed morphine-induced salt aversion

Bevins

Delzer

Bardo

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Effective drugs include morphine [13][14][15], cocaine [16], amphetamine [17], ethanol, flurazepam, chlordiazepoxide [14, 18 , 19 ], nicotine [20], amobarbital and phenobarbital [19] and heroin [21]. Rats, then, avoid intake of a taste cue following pairings with not only LiCl, but also with all drugs of abuse tested, across a range of doses [22], when administered intraperitoneally (ip), subcutaneously (sc), intravenously (iv), and even, in some cases, when administered directly into the nucleus accumbens [17, 23 -26 ].…”

Section: The Model: Experimenter Delivered Drugmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reward comparison: the Achilles’ heel and hope for addiction

Grigson

2008

Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the words of the late Charles Flaherty, reward comparison is commonplace. Rats and man, it appears, compare all rewards and this capacity likely contributes to our ability to select the most appropriate reward/behavior (food, water, salt, sex), at the most ideal level (e.g., a certain sweetness), at any given time. A second advantage of our predisposition for reward comparison is that the availability of rich alternative rewards can protect against our becoming addicted to any single reward/behavior. Thus, the potential protective effects of natural rewards/enrichment are addressed. Despite this, behavior can become inflexible when, through the development of addiction, stress, drug, or cues elicit craving, withdrawal, and ultimately, drug-seeking. Drug-seeking corresponds with a 'window of inopportunity', when even potent natural rewards have little or no impact on behavior. During this time, there is a unitary solution to the need state, and that solution is drug. The present animal model explores this 'window of inopportunity' when natural rewards are devalued and drug-seeking is engaged and considers a mode of possible intervention.

show abstract

“…Subsequently, such aversions have been demonstrated with drugs that were reported to be self-administered (and thus classified as rewarding)-for example, alcohol (Lester, Nachman, & Le Magnen, 1970), amphetamine and mescaline (Cappell & LeBlanc, 1971), Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Elsmore & Fletcher, 1972), morphine (Cappell, LeBlanc, & Endrenyi, 1973), methamphetamine (Martin & Ellinwood, 1973), and cocaine (Cappell & Le Blanc, 1975). The fact that drugs of abuse could also support taste aversion conditioning was at first considered to be paradoxical (Goudie, 1979; see also Hunt & Amit, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A history of morphine-induced taste aversion learning fails to affect morphine-induced place preference conditioning in rats

King

Riley

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drugs of abuse have both rewarding and aversive effects, as indexed by the fact that they support place preferences and taste aversions, respectively. In the present study, we explored whether having a history with the aversive effects of morphine (via taste aversion conditioning) impacted the subsequent rewarding effects of morphine, as measured in the place preference design. In Experiment 1, rats were exposed to a taste aversion procedure in which saccharin was followed by morphine. Place preference conditioning was then initiated in which animals were injected with morphine and placed on one side of a two-chambered apparatus. Animals with a taste aversion history acquired place preferences to the same degree as controls without such a history, suggesting that morphine's affective properties condition multiple effects, dependent on the specific stimuli present during conditioning. To determine whether these results were a reflection of processes operating in traditional associative conditioning, in a modified blocking procedure, place preference conditioning was attempted in the presence of a taste previously associated with morphine (Exp. 2). Under these conditions, animals still acquired morphine-induced place preferences comparable to those of animals without a morphine or conditioning history. These results are consistent with the position that drugs of abuse have multiple stimulus effects (positive and negative) that are differentially associated with specific stimuli (environmental and taste) that drive different behavioral responses (approach and avoidance).

show abstract

Aversive conditioning by psychoactive drugs: Effects of morphine, alcohol and chlordiazepoxide

Cited by 202 publications

References 15 publications

Second-order conditioning detects unexpressed morphine-induced salt aversion

Second-order conditioning detects unexpressed morphine-induced salt aversion

Reward comparison: the Achilles’ heel and hope for addiction

A history of morphine-induced taste aversion learning fails to affect morphine-induced place preference conditioning in rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About