Place conditioning with d-amphetamine: The effect of the CS-UCS interval and evidence of a place avoidance

Abstract

In Experiment 1, a dose-response study ofplace conditioning with amphetamine was conducted. Male Sprague-Dawley rats receiving 0.0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 2.0, 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 mglkg of d-amphetamine underwent 10 4-day cycles ofplace conditioning. On alternate days, each rat was injected with its designated dose of amphetamine while confined to its originally nonpreferred end of a three-compartment, straight alley box. On intervening days, each rat was injected with saline while confined to its originally preferred compartment. Following each 4-day cycle, a choice test was administered in which each rat was allowed 20 min of access to the entire alley box. Doses of amphetamine (~0.5 mglkg) induced a significant avoidance of the compartment in which amphetamine had been administered. In Experiment 2, animals received 0.0, 0.5, 2.0, or 5.0 mglkg of amphetamine and underwent place conditioning procedures identical to those for the animals in Experiment 1. Unlike in Experiment 1, the animals were given a single choice test following 10 4-day place conditioning cycles. All groups that received amphetamine exhibited a conditioned place avoidance. In Experiment 3, the effect ofvarious es-ucs intervals on place conditioning with 2.0 mglkg of amphetamine was examined. Animals that received amphetamine immediately following their removal from the chamber exhibited a conditioned place avoidance.

Dose-dependent aversive and rewarding effects of amphetamine as revealed by a new place conditioning apparatus

“…The observed ability of amphetamine to induce CPP is in line with a number of previous results (see Schechter and Calcagnetti 1993 for review) whilst amphetamine-induced CPA was reported only following training procedures different from those used to reveal CPP (Wall et al 1990). Nevertheless, the psychostimulant (Le Magnen 1969;Reicher and Holman 1977;Carr and White 1986), as a variety of other reinforcing drugs (see Goudie 1979, for review), promotes CTA and a number of results point to CTA as an index of the aversive effects of drugs (Stolerman and D'Mello 1978;Lett 1988) rather than the result of reinforcing-unrelated effects such as conditioned anorexia (Carey 1978).…”

“…In this paradigm, the drug is paired with specific environmental cues and, subsequently, preference or avoidance for the paired cues is evaluated in an undrugged state (Cart et al 1989;Schechter and Calcagnetti 1993, for review). However, evidence for CPA following training with addictive drugs appears to be extremely difficult to gather (Wall et al 1990). One possible explanation for such difficulties could be the conditioning apparatus, since these are usually based on somatosensory, olfactory or visual cues that may induce preference or avoidance on their own.…”

Interstimulus interval determines whether ethanol produces conditioned place preference or aversion in mice

“…A Pavlovian analysis is also consistent with studies showing an influence ofthe temporal relationship between exposure to the environmental CS and drug US, The most commonly used temporal arrangement has involved "simultaneous" exposure to both events (i.e., the drug is injected immediately before placement of the subject in the CS environment). When exposure to the CS is delayed following drug administration (i.e., backward conditioning), conditioned place preference has sometimes been reported at intervals ofup to 2 h (but not 4 h) with an amphetamine US (Reicher & Holman, 1977;Sherman, Roberts, Roskam, & Holman, 1980; but see Wall, Hinson, Schmidt, Johnston, & Streather, 1990). With nicotine, however, backward intervals as short as 20 min have yielded no place conditioning (Fudala & Iwamoto, 1986).…”

MK-801 interferes with the acquisition of amphetamine- and lithium-induced place conditioning

“…The strength of the preference appears to increase with amphetamine dose (Erb & Parker, 1994;Gilbert & Cooper, 1983;Hoffman & Beninger, 1988;Laviola, Dell'Omo, Chiarotti, & Bignami, 1994;Richardson et al, 1993;Spyraki, Fibiger, & Phillips, 1982; although see Costello, Carlson, Glick, &Bryda, 1989, andWall, Hinson, Schmidt, Johnston, &Streather, 1990); in fact Erb and Parker (1994) reported that the strength of an amphetamine-induced place preference increased with doses ranging from 1 to 10 mg/kg, even though at the higher doses amphetamine-induced stereotypy is apparent during conditioning.…”