Dissociation and Recovery of a Response Learned under the Influence of Chlorpromazine or Saline

Otis, Leon S.

doi:10.1126/science.143.3612.1347

Cited by 63 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

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%

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%

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

“…This result was consistent with a dissociation hypothesis proposed by Storm & Smart (1965). suggested by studies with other depressant drugs (Overton, 1964;Otis. 1964), to explain some features of chronic alcoholism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of alcohol on serial verbal learning in chronic alcoholics

Storm

Caird

1967

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The dissociation of movement initiation can apparently be demonstrated with drugs other than the barbiturates (e.g., chlorpromazine: Otis, 1964). but the dissociation of discriminative response choice has so far been demonstrated only with barbiturates or related compounds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%