Morphine injections in the taste aversion paradigm

Farber, Philip D.; Gorman, Judith E.; Reid, Larry D.

doi:10.3758/bf03332885

Cited by 44 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, from such comparisons, one cannot determine whether an animal that acquires a strong place preference (relative to controls and other drug-treated subjects) would or would not display a comparably strong taste aversion (and vice versa). Given that there is considerable individual variability in these behaviors (see Allen, Everett, Nelson, Gulley, & Zahniser, 2007;Farber, Gorman, & Reid, 1976;Riley, Jacobs, & LoLordo, 1978;Xu, Wang, Wu, & Pei, 2001), group analyses may indicate little about the actual relationship between CPPs and CTAs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between the rewarding and aversive effects of morphine and amphetamine in individual subjects

Verendeev

Riley

2011

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drugs of abuse have been reported to produce both rewarding and aversive effects, as evidenced by their ability to induce both conditioned place preferences (CPPs) and conditioned taste aversions (CTAs), respectively. Although several attempts have been made to assess the relationship between the rewarding and aversive effects of drugs in independent groups, it is unknown to what extent (if any) preferences and aversions are related in individual animals. The present study assessed this relationship by examining the ability of morphine (5 and 10 mg/kg) and amphetamine (3 and 5 mg/kg) to induce both place preferences and taste aversions in the same animal, using a concurrent CTA/CPP design. There was no consistent relationship between the ability of morphine or amphetamine at either dose to increase time spent on the drug-paired side and the ability to suppress consumption of the drug-paired taste. These results support the position that drugs of abuse have multiple stimulus effects, both rewarding and aversive, that condition place preferences and taste aversions independently.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between the rewarding and aversive effects of morphine and amphetamine in individual subjects

Verendeev

Riley

2011

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When morphine has been examined within a taste aversion paradigm, high doses are typically given during conditioning (Cappell, LeBlanc, & Herling, 1975;Farber, Gorman, & Reid, 1976;Jacobs et al, 1981;Riley, Jacobs, & LoLordo, 1978;Stewart & Eikelboom, 1978). Doses as low as 6 mg/kg, however, have been reported to produce conditioned taste aversions (Cappell, LeBlanc, & Endrenyi, 1973).…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of morphine preexposure on the acquisition of morphine-induced taste aversions: A nonassociative effect

Riley

Dacanay

Mastropaolo

1984

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, the amount of time rats spent engaged in a range of behaviors was recorded immediately prior to and following the intraperitoneal administration of morphine sulfate (6 mglkg) or distilled water. No behavioral differences were observed between these groups. In Experiment 2, preexposure to this low dose of morphine attenuated the subsequent acquisition of a morphine-induced taste aversion independent of the similarity of the preexposure and conditioning environments. These results with a dose of morphine that does not produce any behavioral effects, which in turn could potentially mask associative conditioning during preexposure, confirm that the attenuating effects of morphine preexposure on taste aversion learning are nonassociative.

show abstract

“…It is not clear how alternative USs might function in this situation, particularly those agents, such as morphine, which have appetitive as well as aversive properties. The aversive properties of morphine have been demonstrated using the conditioned taste aversion procedure (Bardo, Miller, & Risner, 1984;Cappell & LeBlanc, 1973;Farber, Gorman, & Reid, 1976;Riley, Jacobs, & LoLordo, 1978). Alternatively, morphine has been shown to function as a positive reinforcer in both the self-administration (Weeks, 1962;Weeks & Collins, 1979) and place-conditioning paradigms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A within-event analysis of taste-potentiated odor and contextual aversions

Miller

McCoy

Kelly

et al. 1986

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of experiments was conducted to examine the phenomenon of potentiation. Experiment 1 demonstrated potentiation of odor aversions by taste when morphine served as the unconditioned stimulus (US). Experiment 2 provided evidence that the observed potentiation was due to a within-event association between odor and taste stimuli, rather than reflecting an enhanced odor-morphine association. In Experiment 3, morphine supported place conditioning to contextual cues and aversive conditioning to a taste cue, but potentiation of place conditioning by a taste cue was not obtained. Apparently the absence of potentiation was due to the dual nature of the morphine US, as potentiation of a contextual aversion by taste was obtained in Experiment 4 when a strictly aversive US (lithium) was used. These data suggest that potentiation depends on (1) an initially weak association between the to-be-potentiated conditioned stimulus (CS) element and the US, and (2) the elicitation of qualitatively similar responses by the individual elements of the CS compound. Collectively, these results support an explanation of potentiation based on within-event learning.When a compound conditioned stimulus (CS) composed of two or more elements is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US), the elements of the CS are assumed to compete for associative strength. The typical finding is that the more salient element becomes conditioned, whereas remaining CS elements are overshadowed and elicit a weaker conditioned response (CR) (Kamin, 1969;Mackintosh, 1971). An exception to this finding is a situation in which some subjects are presented with 'an odor CS followed by an illness-inducing injection of lithium chloride (LiCl), whereas others are presented with a compound odor-taste CS followed by a LiCI injection. When subsequently tested with the odor stimulus alone, subjects conditioned with the compound odor-taste CS show a stronger aversion than those conditioned with the odor CS alone

show abstract

Morphine injections in the taste aversion paradigm

Cited by 44 publications

References 8 publications

Relationship between the rewarding and aversive effects of morphine and amphetamine in individual subjects

Relationship between the rewarding and aversive effects of morphine and amphetamine in individual subjects

The effect of morphine preexposure on the acquisition of morphine-induced taste aversions: A nonassociative effect

A within-event analysis of taste-potentiated odor and contextual aversions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About