Discriminative Stimulus Functions of Drugs: Interpretations

Catania, A. Charles; Overmier, J. Bruce

doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-0788-5_9

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adding these results to those of Swedberg and J/irbe (1985) gives further support to our model (J/irbe and Swedberg 1982) and reinforces the view that drugs may be conceived of as stimuli subject to experimental manipulation in ways similar to those commonly used in experimental psychology (Catania 1971).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Drug discrimination procedures: Differential characteristics of the drug A vs drug B and the drug A vs drug B vs no drug cases

Swedberg

Järbe²

1986

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two groups of pigeons with a history of two choice operant drug discrimination tasks (3.0 mg/kg morphine versus 5.6 mg/kg cocaine, and 3.0 mg/kg morphine versus 3.0 mg/kg cocaine, respectively; Swedberg and Järbe 1985) were subjected to three choice tasks in which responses on a third manipulandum were reinforced in the no drug condition. Training drugs generalization gradients in both groups were similar to those normally obtained in two choice drug versus no drug tasks. The salience differences between the training stimuli within the groups observed in the previous two choice task did not differentially affect the three choice discrimination gradients. Tests with novel drugs after the introduction of the no drug condition yielded increased responding to the no drug condition with the exception of the dopamine agonist apomorphine. Results are discussed in terms of a discrimination learning model specifying principles of relative discriminative stimulus control in various discrimination cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Drug discrimination procedures: Differential characteristics of the drug A vs drug B and the drug A vs drug B vs no drug cases

Swedberg

Järbe²

1986

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drugs are stimuli (Catania, 1971) and may enter into associations with other stimuli, according to the principles of classical conditioning. Most cases of administration of drugs can be considered conditioning trials, since distinct signals are present prior to the administration of the drug, and prior to the occurrence of the effect of the drug.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug effects: Agonistic and antagonistic processes

Flaten

2009

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research presented here has shown that tolerance to drugs can be accelerated by conditioning processes. Placebo effects may be considered the opposite of tolerance, and we have shown that placebo effects may be objectively recorded by physiological measures (electromyography, skin conductance responses, and event-related potentials), as well as by behavioral and subjective methods. The placebo response, or more precisely, the expectation of drug effects, can add to the effect of the drug. Drug antagonistic expectations can also reverse the effect of the drug. There is some evidence that placebo effects are strongest when expectations are reinforced by administration of an active drug. Expectations have graded effects and may affect symptoms to a smaller or larger degree. Although drug effects can be considered stimuli, the investigation of the role of classical conditioning in drug use and drug effects involves special issues that must be carefully considered.

show abstract

“…Drugs are stimuli (Catania, 1971), and they can function as both unconditioned (unlearned) and conditioned (learned) stimuli. In addition, a distinction can be made between reinforcing and discriminative properties of substances.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction between drug discriminative stimuli and exteroceptive, sensory signals.

Järbe¹,

Johansson²

1984

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactions between drug discriminative stimuli (based on 5.6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg pentobarbital) and exteroceptive stimuli (visual and auditory) were studied in a T-maze. In three groups, visual stimuli (light vs. dark) were differentially paired with drug stimuli; the fourth group discriminated combinations of tonal frequencies (1 kHz or 10 kHz) and the presence or absence of pentobarbital. (10 mg/kg). In general, visual stimuli controlled choice behavior (left or right turn) to a greater extent than did the drug training stimuli, whereas the auditory stimuli exerted no apparent control over the pentobarbital stimulus in Group 4. Tests with doses higher than the training doses indicated augmented stimulus control by the drug dimension in two groups (Group 1, 10 mg/kg pentobarbital vs. saline; Group 2, 5.6 mg/kg vs. 10 mg/kg pentobarbital) but not in the third group (5.6 mg/kg pentobarbital vs. saline) in the "conflict" situation, that is, the exteroceptive conditions signaled one response whereas the drug stimulus signaled the opposite response. Discrimination training with only one of the stimulus dimensions resulted in stimulus control in the following order: 10 mg/kg vs. saline greater than 5.6 mg/kg vs. saline greater than 1 kHz vs. 10 kHz, results indicating that the auditory stimuli were of marginal significance. In conclusion, drugs can complete with exteroceptive, visual stimuli for associative strength.

show abstract

Discriminative Stimulus Functions of Drugs: Interpretations

Cited by 20 publications

References 8 publications

Drug discrimination procedures: Differential characteristics of the drug A vs drug B and the drug A vs drug B vs no drug cases

Drug discrimination procedures: Differential characteristics of the drug A vs drug B and the drug A vs drug B vs no drug cases

Drug effects: Agonistic and antagonistic processes

Interaction between drug discriminative stimuli and exteroceptive, sensory signals.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About