Sleepiness and the reinforcing and subjective effects of methylphenidate.

Abstract

On 4 days, 6 volunteers received 10 mg methylphenidate or placebo at 0900 after 4 or 8 hr time in bed (TIB) and then on 4 days after 4 or 8 hr TIB chose their preferred capsule. On sampling days, 4 hr TIB increased multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) scores and Fatigue scale scores on the Profile of Mood States (POMS). In both TIBs, the drug increased the MSLT and POMS Vigor and Tension scale scores. It reduced POMS Fatigue scores and improved divided attention performance to a greater extent after 4 versus 8 hr. Drug was chosen on 88% of days after 4 hr, but only 29% of days after 8 hr. Preference for the drug depends on sleepiness and is mediated by performance-enhancing and fatigue-altering effects.

Reinforcing effects of methylphenidate: influence of dose and behavioral demands following drug administration

“…These studies suggest that the reinforcing and subject-rated effects of drugs, including stimulants, sedatives, and opiates, are not isomorphic. However, others have observed parallel changes in the reinforcing and subject-rated effects of a drug following contextual manipulation (Roehrs et al 1999). As described above, the reinforcing effects of methylphenidate were enhanced after sleep deprivation in that study.…”

“…Previous research suggests that manipulation of variables preceding methylphenidate administration also influenced its ability to function as a reinforcer (Roehrs et al 1999). In that study, choice to self-administer oral methylphenidate (10 mg) increased significantly when volunteers were sleep deprived (4 h in bed) compared with when they were fully rested (8 h in bed) (Roehrs et al 1999).…”

“…As described above, the reinforcing effects of methylphenidate were enhanced after sleep deprivation in that study. In addition, methylphenidate administration after sleep deprivation decreased fatigue scores on the profile of mood states (POMS), relative to when participants were fully rested (Roehrs et al 1999). Whether these discordant findings can be explained by the use of different subject-rated, drug-effect questionnaires (i.e., POMS) or the manipulation of a variable antecedent to (Roehrs et al 1999) versus following (present results;Silverman et al 1994a,b) drug administration remains to be determined.…”

Nighttime versus daytime hypnotic self-administration

“…The dependent measures were tracking deviations in video monitor pixels and reaction times (RT) in seconds to the central and peripheral stimuli. The divided attention test has been shown to be sensitive to sedative and stimulant drug effects (Roehrs et al 1999(Roehrs et al , 2001b. For the memory assessment, subjects did the Henry Ford Hospital Memory Test which is a 16-item episodic memory test requiring recall of four details from each of four real-life situations (i.e.…”

Scoring Reliablity of the Multiple Sleep Latency Test in a Clinical Population

“…4 The MSLT has become the most widely used measure of physiological sleep propensity, 5 and it has been demonstrated to be sensitive to the effects of partial and total sleep deprivation 6 and pharmacological manipulations of alertness. 7 Finally, the MSLT has been found to have high (r =.97, p<.001) test-retest reliability at three to six month intervals in healthy individuals. 8 To date, only one study has been published examining the scoring reliability of the MSLT in a clinical population.…”