RESPONSE SUPPRESSION BY VISUAL STIMULI PAIRED WITH POSTSESSION d‐AMPHETAMINE INJECTIONS IN THE PIGEON

Abstract

Responding of pigeons, maintained under a fixed-interval 3-minute schedule of food presentation, was decreased on days that the color of the lights illuminating the food magazine was changed and d-amphetamine (1.0 mg/kg, i.m.) was injected after the session. Responding was not decreased by keylight color changes paired with postsession d-amphetamine or by postsession injections of saline. Administration of pentobarbital (3.0 to 5.6 mg/kg), but not d-amphetamine (.3 to 3.0 mg/kg), before the session increased rates of responding suppressed by drug-paired magazine lights. Responding maintained under a fixed-ratio 30-response schedule was not decreased when differently colored magazine lights were paired vith a low (.3 mg/kg) postsession dose of d-amphetamine; with high (3.0 mg/kg) postsession doses, however, responding was completely suppressed after two pairings. The effects of pairing magazine stimuli with an intermediate (1.0 mg/kg) postsession dose of d-amphetamine depended upon the magnitude of prior postsession doses. After being paired with a low dose, stimuli paired with 1.0 mg/kg did not suppress responding. After being paired with a high dose, stimuli paired with 1.0 mg/kg completely suppressed responding. The suppression of food-maintained responding by stimuli paired with postsession drug administration depends upon both behavioral and pharmacological variables.

Effects of lithium chloride illness on food preference in pigeons: A concurrent operants procedure for the study of food-aversion learning

“…For example, when water was served as the reinforcer, responding on a single schedule of reinforcement decreased when injections of d-amphetamine (D 'Mello & Stolerman, 1978; or lithium chloride (Logue, 1980) followed drinking. Similar results have been reported for animals responding on single schedules of reinforcement for food (Glowa & Barrett, 1983). In the present experiment, pigeons chose between two different foods according to a concurrent variable-interval variable-interval (VI VI) schedule of reinforcement.…”

Response topography in behavioral tolerance to cocaine with rats

“…they received an injection of cocaine (17.0 mg/kg). The delay to post-session injections helped prevent within-session response suppression, which has accompanied post-session drug administration that occurred directly after a session (Branch and Sizemore 1988; Glowa and Barrett 1983; Pinkston and Branch 2004). The chronic dose (17.0 mg/kg) was chosen because acute administration decreased responding by more than 60%, but did not completely suppress responding.…”

Drug Discrimination Using a Conditioned Taste‐aversion Paradigm in Rhesus Monkeys

“…EXPERIMENT 2 Because evidence of drug discrimination in Experiment 1 was weak (i.e., response rates during ALPZ/LiCl and saline/saline sessions were not clearly different), a higher presession dose of ALPZ was studied in Experiment 2. Because the overall degree of suppression produced by postsession LiCl in Experiment 1 was low, and previous studies (Glowa & Barrett, 1983) had shown postsession d-amphet- Table 1 Baseline rates of responding (SD) for each monkey, in the order of the various experimental conditions to which it was exposed. For Experiment 1, baseline is the mean of Thursdays during the dose-effect determinations.…”

“…The moderate suppression may have been a function of the specific dose of d-A used. For both operant (Glowa & Barrett, 1983) and consummatory (Nathan & Vogel, 1975) responding, complete dose-effect data suggest that sufficiently large postsession doses are required to produce complete response suppression. Because relatively little data are available on the effects of different postsession doses of d-A in rhesus monkeys, the possibility that greater suppression may have been obtained if slightly higher doses of d-A were used remains plausible.…”

“…The results suggest that the taste-aversion paradigm can be used to establish drug discrimination rapidly. 303 1991, 56, 303-312 NUMBER 2 (SEPTEMBER) Although taste aversions have typically been assessed by changes in the consumption of food or water, changes in operant responding have also been used to study this effect (Bergman & Glowa, 1986;Glowa & Barrett, 1983;Stolerman & D'Mello, 1978). For example, when responding by squirrel monkeys was maintained under a fixed-ratio (FR) 30 schedule of food pellet presentation, pairing the type of food pellet (banana vs. sucrose) produced under the FR schedule with postsession drug injections decreased responding that produced the drug-paired food pellet (Bergman & Glowa, 1986).…”