Interaction between drug discriminative stimuli and exteroceptive, sensory signals.

Abstract

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.

Acquisition, Extinction, Recovery, and Reversal of Different Response Sequences Under Conditional Control by Nicotine in Rats

“…Ultimately, the interoceptive drug condition likely interacted with the role of the light in regulating the ongoing sequences of behavior. This interpretation is consistent with other studies that showed conditional discriminative relations among drug states and exteroceptive stimuli in both operant and Pavlovian drug discrimination procedures (Bevins & Murray, 2011; Colpaert, Niemegeers, & Janssen, 1978; Duncan, Phillips, Reints, & Schecter, 1979; Jarbe and Johansson 1984; Jarbe, Sterner, & Hjerpe, 1981; Parker, Schaal, & Miller, 1994; Troisi & Akins, 2004). …”

Transfer of the discriminative stimulus effects of Δ9-THC and nicotine from one operant response to another in rats

“…During testing, the reinstallation of the original-response manipulandum functioned as an exteroceptive S D and appeared to renew (e.g., Bouton and King 1983) the drug→original-response relationship as evidenced by the return of the drug discrimination first established with the original-response. This result further shows the interaction among interoceptive drug states and exteroceptive stimuli in the regulation of behavior (e.g., Järbe et al 1983;Järbe and Johansson 1984).…”

Role of training dose in drug discrimination

“…2). Greater discrimination accuracy was obtained with higher pentobarbital training doses, regardless of whether a ‘drug versus no drug’ procedure in parallel groups (De Vry and Slangen, 1986b; Järbe and Johansson, 1984) or a three-choice ‘dose versus dose versus no drug’ approach (McMillan et al, 2001) was utilised. Low pentobarbital training doses frequently engendered leftward shifts in dose-response curves (or lower ED 50 values) when compared to higher ones (Ator and Griffiths, 1989; McMillan et al, 2001; De Vry and Slangen, 1986b).…”