Control of behavior by drug-produced internal stimuli

Belleville, Richard E.

doi:10.1007/bf00413046

Cited by 68 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In most early studies of state-dependent learning (SOL), impairment of retrieval was expected after either D-N or N-O state changes (symmetrical SOL), because the N response was thought to be contingent on N cues and the 0 response contingent on 0 cues (e.g., Belleville, 1964;Heistad, 1957;Otis, 1964). Additionally, when a drug was administered, 0 cues were assumed to displace N cues so that the animal could not experience Nand 0 cues simultaneously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Brown, Feldman, and Moore (1968) state that injection of drug "produces cues which are discriminable from the cues produced by injection '" of saline" (also see Browne & Ho, 1975;Jones, Grant, & Vospalek, 1976;Schechter, 1973). Several investigators apparently accept this theory, and most studies on state-dependent learning are explained in this fashion (e.g., Belleville, 1964;Heistad, 1957).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training?

Overton

Merkle

Hayes

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were trained in a two-lever operant chamber to discriminate the presence versus the absence of a drug. During drug sessions, the training procedure involved reinforcing presses on lever 1 with saccharin-sweetened water but not reinforcing presses on lever 2. During nodrug sessions, only presses on lever 2 were reinforced. After this discrimination was learned, each rat was trained to discriminate presence versus absence of a second drug. All rats learned this second discrimination. Finally, the rats were tested to determine whether they could still discriminate the first drug, as well as other pharmacologically related compounds; most rats could. Training drugs were phenobarbital 30-36, nicotine 0.4, amphetamine 0.4, cyproheptadine 7, phencyclidine 4, cyclazocine 1.5, fentanyl 0.04, and scopolamine 0.2 mglkg. The results indicate that drug versus no-drug discrimination training does not disrupt discriminative control previously established with a different drug. When considered in combination with the results obtained during substitution tests conducted after drug-versus-no-drug training, the data suggest that, instead of discriminating drug cues versus no-drug cues, rats discriminate presence versus absence of particular drug cues.Drug discriminations (DDs) can be established in a training compartment that allows either of two different instrumental responses by reinforcing one response during sessions conducted in one drug condition and the second response during sessions in a second drug condition. When animals are trained to discriminate between two different drugs (Dl vs. D2), there is general agreement that the "stimulus effects" of 01 act as discriminative stimuli for the first response, and that 02 provides discriminative stimuli for the second response. However, when animals are trained to discriminate a drug (D) versus no drug (N), there is some disagreement concerning the nature of the stimuli (cues) that underlie DDs and the type of learning that takes place during OD training.One formulation asserts that animals discriminate between cues present during 0 sessions (drug cues) and those present during N sessions (no-drug or saline-induced cues), that is, that the D response becomes contingent on cues produced by the training drug and that the N response becomes contingent on specific cues that occur only in the N state. For example, Brown, Feldman, and Moore (1968) state that

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training?

Overton

Merkle

Hayes

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When conditioned responses are acquired under a particular drug state, however, changing the drug state may result in reduced responding, an effect often referred to as "state dependent learning" (Overton, 1968). For example, Belleville (1964) found that a lever-pressing response in rats, acquired under morphine, extinguished more rapidly under saline than under the same drug state (morphine). Similar effects have been observed with thioridazine in rats using a conditioned suppression procedure similar to that in the present experiment (Heistad and Torres, 1959).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CONDITIONED NALORPHINE‐INDUCED ABSTINENCE CHANGES: PERSISTENCE IN POST MORPHINE‐DEPENDENT MONKEYS¹

Goldberg

Schuster

1970

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every tenth lever-press of three morphine-dependent rhesus monkeys was reinforced with food. A red light, initially a neutral stimulus, was presented every third or fourth session for 5 min before and 5 min after an intravenous injection of nalorphine, a morphine antagonist that produces an imnmediate abstinence syndrome in morphine-dependent monkeys. After several pairings, conditioned suppression of lever pressing, heart-rate decrease, vomiting, and excessive salivation were observed during the red-light period before nalorphine injection. No conditioned electrocardiogram, respiration or temperature changes occurred. After 10 red light-nalorphine pairings, morphine administration was completely discontinued and monkeys were then tested monthly for persistence of the conditioned responses. The red light paired with saline injection continued to suppress lever pressing and to produce heart-rate decreases after 60 to 120 days of complete abstinence from morphine. Subsequently, daily presentations of the red light-saline injection complex rapidly extinguished these conditioned responses. Nevertheless, they could be rapidly reinstated by additional nalorphine injections.After a period of chronic morphine administration, failure to continue periodic administration of drug to an organism results in severe physiological and behavioral disturbances several liours after the last dose of drug. This complex of signs and symptoms, termed the morphine abstinence syndrome, indicates that the organism has become physically dependent on the drug (Tatum, Seevers, and Collins, 1929;Seevers and Deneau, 1963). It has been frequently suggested that conditioning factors arising during periods of abstinence distress may contribute to the perpetuation of drug-taking behavior. For example, Irwin and Seevers (1956), Wikler (1965), and Goldberg and Schuster (1967) found that certain aspects of the morphine abstinence syndrome can be classically conditioned. Further, Goldberg, Woods, and showed that stim-"This paper is based on a dissertation submitted to the Graduate

show abstract

“…This report describes a StD procedure which utilizes conditions that are similar to those of a widely used DD procedure (Colpaert et al 1976) and has features in common with some earlier described (Belleville 1964;Koek and Slangen 1982) methods. Data are presented which demonstrate robust StD effects of chlordiazepoxide (CDP) and characterize the dose-dependency of CDP-StD in this procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A method for quantifying state-dependency with chlordiazepoxide in rats

Colpaert

1986

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A state-dependency procedure is described in which changes from the chlordiazepoxide state yield a robust and dose-dependent response decrement in rats. The format of data that are obtained with this procedure permits that the response decrement following a state change be defined accurately in individual animals, and that transfer be quantified. Dose-response studies revealed 13 (7.4-22) mg/kg to be the ED50 of chlordiazepoxide at which transfer occurred in animals that had acquired the response with 40 mg/kg chlordiazepoxide; the ED50 acquisition dose of chlordiazepoxide at which transfer to saline failed to occur was 3.7 (2.2-6.4 mg/kg).

show abstract

Control of behavior by drug-produced internal stimuli

Cited by 68 publications

References 6 publications

Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training?

Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training?

CONDITIONED NALORPHINE‐INDUCED ABSTINENCE CHANGES: PERSISTENCE IN POST MORPHINE‐DEPENDENT MONKEYS¹

A method for quantifying state-dependency with chlordiazepoxide in rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Control of behavior by drug-produced internal stimuli

Cited by 68 publications

References 6 publications

Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training?

Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training?

CONDITIONED NALORPHINE‐INDUCED ABSTINENCE CHANGES: PERSISTENCE IN POST MORPHINE‐DEPENDENT MONKEYS1

A method for quantifying state-dependency with chlordiazepoxide in rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

CONDITIONED NALORPHINE‐INDUCED ABSTINENCE CHANGES: PERSISTENCE IN POST MORPHINE‐DEPENDENT MONKEYS¹