Determinants of choice, and vulnerability and recovery in addiction

Lamb, Richard; Maguire, David R.; Ginsburg, Brett C.; Pinkston, Jonathan W.; France, Charles P.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2016.04.001

Cited by 37 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 71 publications

(100 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the diagnosis of substance-use disorders takes a behavioral-centric perspective and implies that such disorders arise from behavioral misallocation between the abused substance and these alternative nondrug reinforcers (Figure 1A, Key Figure). This behavioral-centric perspective is also supported by evidence from the scientific community [5,6] and the clinical deployment of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment strategies for substance-use disorders [7,8]. Furthermore, based on these diagnostic criteria, treatment goals for substance-use disorders include not only decreasing drug use, but also increasing behaviors maintained by adaptive nondrug reinforcers [9–12] (Figure 1B).…”

Section: Drug Addictionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Insights from Preclinical Choice Models on Treating Drug Addiction

Banks

Negus

2017

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Substance-use disorders are a global public health problem that arises from behavioral misallocation between drug use and more adaptive behaviors maintained by nondrug alternatives (e.g., food or money). Preclinical drug self-administration procedures that incorporate a concurrently available nondrug reinforcer (e.g., food) provide translationally relevant and distinct dependent measures of behavioral allocation (i.e., to assess the relative reinforcing efficacy of the drug) and behavioral rate (i.e., to assess motor competence). In particular, preclinical drug versus food 'choice' procedures have produced increasingly concordant results with both human laboratory drug self-administration studies and double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. Accordingly, here we provide a heuristic framework of substance-use disorders based on a behavioral-centric perspective and recent insights from these preclinical choice procedures. Keywordschoice; addiction; preclinical model; drug self-administration; substance-use disorder Trends Substance-use disorders (i.e., drug addiction) are increasingly being conceptualized as disorders of behavioral misallocation between drug and nondrug reinforcers.Preclinical drug versus food choice procedures are increasingly being utilized to elucidate environmental, pharmacological, and biological mechanisms associated with this behavioral misallocation.Preclinical drug versus food choice procedures provide distinct dependent measures that dissociate drug reinforcement (i.e., allocation of behavior) from motor competence (i.e., rate of behavior). Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptAlternative nondrug reinforcer availability and temporal delivery impact behavioral allocation.Preclinical drug versus food choice procedures are being developed for abused drugs other than cocaine.Biological variables are an emerging as important determinants of behavioral allocation between drug and nondrug reinforcers. Drug AddictionDrug addiction is an insidious and global public health problem. . Furthermore, six of the 11 diagnostic criteria used for substance-use disorders are based on the allocation of behavior towards the procurement and use of the substance compared with other behaviors maintained by nondrug and presumably more adaptive alternative reinforcers (e.g., food, money, or social commendation). Thus, the diagnosis of substance-use disorders takes a behavioral-centric perspective and implies that such disorders arise from behavioral misallocat...

show abstract

Section: Drug Addictionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Insights from Preclinical Choice Models on Treating Drug Addiction

Banks

Negus

2017

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, focusing our work and our interpretation of our work. For instance, drug self-administration research began mostly with researchers steeped in the operant tradition and this led them to look first at addiction as an example of reinforced behavior ( e.g ., Schuster 1976; Griffiths et al 1980), and then more recently as an example of choice behavior ( e.g ., Heyman 2009; Vuchinich & Tucker 1988; Lamb et al submitted). Only rarely did these researchers investigate questions related to the role of Pavlovian stimuli in addiction with rigor ( e.g ., Goldberg et al 1969; Goldberg et al 1976; Goldberg et al 1979).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because these differing viewpoints suggest differing therapeutic approaches, future experiments need to be designed not only to address the knowledge gaps outlined, but also to examine the behavioral and neurobiological mechanisms by which learning results in addictive behavior and relapse. Such experiments will benefit from the use of experimental models using procedures other than extinction to suppress drug use ( e.g ., Panllilio et al 2003; Ginsburg & Lamb 2013a,b), as these other models appear to be more relevant to the processes operating in relapse and recovery (see Lamb et al submitted). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned stimuli’s role in relapse: preclinical research on Pavlovian-Instrumental-Transfer

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale and Objective Pavlovian learning is central to many theories of addiction. In these theories, stimuli paired with drug ingestion become Conditioned Stimuli (CS) and subsequently elicit drug-seeking and -taking. However in most relevant studies, Pavlovian and instrumental learning are confounded. This confound may be avoided in Pavlovian-Instrumental-Transfer (PIT) procedures. In PIT, Pavlovian and instrumental learning are established separately, and then combined. In order to better understand the role of CSs in addiction, we review the relevant studies using PIT. Findings We identified seven articles examining PIT effects of ethanol- or cocaine-paired CSs. Under at least one condition six of these articles reported CS-elicited increases in responding previously maintained by drug. However, the only study using the optimal control condition failed to find a CS-elicited increase. Two studies examining CS specificity found the CS also increased responding maintained by a different reinforcer. Two studies examined if CSs elicit increases in actual drug-taking. Both failed to find CS-elicited increases, i.e., no study shows CS-elicited increases in actual drug-taking. Further, CS-elicited increases in extinguished responding are short-lived. Conclusions These findings are not entirely consistent with Pavlovian learning playing a central role in addiction. However, design issues can explain most of these inconsistencies. Studies without these design issues are needed. Additionally, existing theories hypothesize drug-paired CSs increase drug-taking by increasing motivation, by eliciting conditioned responses that make drug-seeking more probable, or by a combination of these. Work distinguishing between these mechanisms would also be useful.

show abstract

“…While this argument may seem somewhat tautological, it is interesting to note that an important characteristic of what we call craving is the disruption of performance by search-like activities for alcohol or efforts to avoid drinking (Tiffany 1990). To the extent that this performance had been competing with drinking, its disruption may promote alcohol-seeking and drinking (Lamb et al 2016b). So, similarly in Experiment 3, disruption in food-responding by the ethanol-CS may have resulted in an increase in ethanol-responding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of an ethanol-paired CS on responding for ethanol and food: Comparisons with a stimulus in a Truly-Random-Control group and to a food-paired CS on responding for food

Lamb

Ginsburg

Schindler

2016

Alcohol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivational increases due to exposure to alcohol-paired Conditioned Stimuli (CS) are central to some accounts of alcoholism. However, few studies isolate a stimulus’s function as a CS from its other potential functions. Pavlovian-Instrumental-Transfer (PIT) procedures isolate a stimulus’s function as a CS from its other functions. Though there are several relevant studies using PIT, knowledge gaps exist. Particularly, it is not clear that an alcohol-paired CS will increase alcohol seeking compared to the same stimulus in a Truly-Random-Control group, nor whether such increases are specific to alcohol seeking. To address these knowledge gaps in Experiment 1, rats responded for ethanol (0.1 ml 8% w/v) under an RI 30-sec schedule, then the lever was removed and half the rats had ethanol delivered during occasional 120-sec light presentations, while the remainder had ethanol and the light presented under independent RT schedules. Later the lever was returned and the light was presented during responding in extinction (PIT test). Following this test, levers were again removed and the light was presented without ethanol (light extinction), following again by a PIT test. Responding in the two groups during light presentations did not differ in either PIT test. Experiment 2 repeated Experiment 1 using food instead of ethanol. In Experiment 2, responding during light presentations increased in the paired group. In Experiment 3, rats were trained on a concurrent FR schedule of food and ethanol delivery. Ethanol was delivered following 5 responses and the response requirement for food adjusted so that similar numbers of food and ethanol deliveries were obtained. Subsequently, rats underwent conditioning, control and testing procedures identical to those in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, the ethanol-paired CS increased ethanol-responding, but not food-responding. These results are most easily interpreted as changes in responding resulting from CS-elicited behavior rather than motivational changes. This interpretation is more compatible with some descriptions of the role of an alcohol-paired CS in alcoholism than others.

show abstract

Determinants of choice, and vulnerability and recovery in addiction

Cited by 37 publications

References 71 publications

Insights from Preclinical Choice Models on Treating Drug Addiction

Insights from Preclinical Choice Models on Treating Drug Addiction

Conditioned stimuli’s role in relapse: preclinical research on Pavlovian-Instrumental-Transfer

Effects of an ethanol-paired CS on responding for ethanol and food: Comparisons with a stimulus in a Truly-Random-Control group and to a food-paired CS on responding for food

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About