2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2004.03.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative analyses of methamphetamine’s effects on self-control choices: implications for elucidating behavioral mechanisms of drug action

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

7
69
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
7
69
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Several lines of evidence indicate that this effect occurs with considerable generality. As noted in the introduction, these drugs usually increase choices of a larger, more delayed reinforcer under self-control procedures (Pietras et al, 2003;Pitts & Febbo, 2004;Pitts & McKinney, 2005;Richards et al, 1999;Wade et al, 2000), and quantitative analyses of choice are consistent with this view (Pitts & Febbo, 2004). Interestingly, quantitative analyses also indicate that lesions of the orbital prefrontal cortex can increase estimates of sensitivity to reinforcement delay (e.g., Mobini et al, 2002;Kheramin et al, 2003).…”
Section: Effects Of D-amphetaminesupporting
confidence: 53%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Several lines of evidence indicate that this effect occurs with considerable generality. As noted in the introduction, these drugs usually increase choices of a larger, more delayed reinforcer under self-control procedures (Pietras et al, 2003;Pitts & Febbo, 2004;Pitts & McKinney, 2005;Richards et al, 1999;Wade et al, 2000), and quantitative analyses of choice are consistent with this view (Pitts & Febbo, 2004). Interestingly, quantitative analyses also indicate that lesions of the orbital prefrontal cortex can increase estimates of sensitivity to reinforcement delay (e.g., Mobini et al, 2002;Kheramin et al, 2003).…”
Section: Effects Of D-amphetaminesupporting
confidence: 53%
“…Much of this work has focused on effects of drugs under ''self-control'' preparations in which subjects choose between a larger, more delayed reinforcer and a smaller, more immediate one. Drugs classified as psychomotor stimulants (e.g., amphetamines, methylphenidate) typically increase the likelihood of choosing the larger, more delayed reinforcer (Pietras, Cherek, Lane, Tcheremissine, & Steinberg, 2003;Pitts & Febbo, 2004;Pitts & McKinney, 2005;Richards, Sabol, de Wit, 1999;Wade, de Wit, & Richards, 2000; but see Charrier & Thiebot, 1996;Evenden & Ryan, 1996). There are a number of potential behavioral mechanisms of this effect (see Pitts & Febbo, 2004;Richards et al, 1999).…”
Section: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is not possible, currently, to distinguish, absolutely, between these alternatives because both strain-related differences in reward perception (and hence reinforcer efficacy) and alterations in timing would predict systematic effects on choice bias. However, a contribution from reward processes mediating the sensitivity of the subject's behavior to the differences in reinforcement amount may be more consistent with the baseline strain differences seen at zero delay (Pitts and Febbo, 2004). Importantly, these putative effects would again have to be specific to the psychologies taxed during the delayedreinforcement task, because there were no differences in the reinforcer habituation/preferences test conducted before the main experiment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, any observed differences in choice between Lewis and Fischer 344 rats may be due differential sensitivities to reinforcer delay and/or magnitude. Future studies and quantitative analyses may elucidate some of the mechanisms that underlie choice deemed "impulsive" and allow for a teasing apart of factors that influence such choice, e.g., sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude and delay (see Ho et al, 1999 andPitts andFebbo, 2004 for further discussions of quantitative analyses). Certainly, there are many operational definitions and paradigms to study impulsivity (cf.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%