Stimulus Attributes of Drugs

BarryIII, Herbert

doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2394-5_8

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the interpretation advanced by several theorists to explain such asymmetry (e.g., Barry 1978;Eich 1980) is entirely consistent with the present view. For example, it may be assumed that drug injections simply add D or drug cues with N or normal state cues being little affected.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Remembering and forgetting as context discrimination.

Capaldi¹,

Neath²

1995

Learning & Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Remembering and forgetting as context discrimination.

Capaldi¹,

Neath²

1995

Learning & Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Once these assumptions were made, asymmetrical state dependency (with generalization of responding from N to 0 but amnesia after a O-to-N state change) was inexplicable, and had to be regarded as an artifact or as a different phenomenon (Deutsch & Roll, 1973;Overton, 1968). However, a "no-cue" interpretation of the N state has been suggested in several recent reports on SOL (Barry, 1978;Boyd & Caul, 1979;Overton, in press). Such a "no-cue" interpretation of the N state radically alters Our expectations regarding the outcome of 2 x 2 SOL experiments, and makes asymmetrical SOL an expected finding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training?

Overton

Merkle

Hayes

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were trained in a two-lever operant chamber to discriminate the presence versus the absence of a drug. During drug sessions, the training procedure involved reinforcing presses on lever 1 with saccharin-sweetened water but not reinforcing presses on lever 2. During nodrug sessions, only presses on lever 2 were reinforced. After this discrimination was learned, each rat was trained to discriminate presence versus absence of a second drug. All rats learned this second discrimination. Finally, the rats were tested to determine whether they could still discriminate the first drug, as well as other pharmacologically related compounds; most rats could. Training drugs were phenobarbital 30-36, nicotine 0.4, amphetamine 0.4, cyproheptadine 7, phencyclidine 4, cyclazocine 1.5, fentanyl 0.04, and scopolamine 0.2 mglkg. The results indicate that drug versus no-drug discrimination training does not disrupt discriminative control previously established with a different drug. When considered in combination with the results obtained during substitution tests conducted after drug-versus-no-drug training, the data suggest that, instead of discriminating drug cues versus no-drug cues, rats discriminate presence versus absence of particular drug cues.Drug discriminations (DDs) can be established in a training compartment that allows either of two different instrumental responses by reinforcing one response during sessions conducted in one drug condition and the second response during sessions in a second drug condition. When animals are trained to discriminate between two different drugs (Dl vs. D2), there is general agreement that the "stimulus effects" of 01 act as discriminative stimuli for the first response, and that 02 provides discriminative stimuli for the second response. However, when animals are trained to discriminate a drug (D) versus no drug (N), there is some disagreement concerning the nature of the stimuli (cues) that underlie DDs and the type of learning that takes place during OD training.One formulation asserts that animals discriminate between cues present during 0 sessions (drug cues) and those present during N sessions (no-drug or saline-induced cues), that is, that the D response becomes contingent on cues produced by the training drug and that the N response becomes contingent on specific cues that occur only in the N state. For example, Brown, Feldman, and Moore (1968) state that

show abstract

“…In particular, studies in which two different drug training groups were compared in the same procedure report symmetrical cross-generalization (PB/ETOH, Overton 1977: CDP/PB, De Vry and Slangen 1985;Krimmer 1974: CDP/ETOH, Barry and Krimmer 1977), as well as asymmetrical cross-generalization (PB/ ETOH, Krimmer 1974; Overton 1966; CDP/PB, Overton Offprint requests to: J. De Vry 1966: CDP/ETOH, Barry 1978). It has been suggested that differences in training dose level may contribute to this variability in generalization results (Barry and Krimmer 1977;York 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of training dose on discrimination and cross-generalization of chlordiazepoxide, pentobarbital and ethanol in the rat

Vry

Slangen

1986

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six groups of rats (N = 8), trained to discriminate chlordiazepoxide (5 or 20 mg/kg), pentobarbital (5 or 15 mg/kg) or ethanol (750 or 1500 mg/kg) from saline in a two-lever food-reinforced procedure, were tested for stimulus generalization with the three drugs. Training drug, but not training dose, affected the extent of generalization to a test drug; symmetrical generalization between chlordiazepoxide and pentobarbital and asymmetrical generalization between chlordiazepoxide and ethanol and between pentobarbital and ethanol was observed. Training dose level affected slope and ED50 of the generalization gradients of training drugs and substitution drugs, discriminative performance, response bias and threshold dose for response suppression. Indices of lever selection and percentage drug-appropriate lever responses yielded similar generalization maxima, slopes and ED50S. The potency of chlordiazepoxide relative to the potency of pentobarbital to induce drug stimulus generalization varied across the experimental groups. The results indicate differences between the discriminative effects of chlordiazepoxide, pentobarbital and ethanol. It is suggested that the discriminative effects of chlordiazepoxide, pentobarbital and ethanol are not based on their response rate modulating effects and that training dose is not a determinant for the extent of cross-generalization between these compounds.

show abstract

Stimulus Attributes of Drugs

Cited by 11 publications

References 66 publications

Remembering and forgetting as context discrimination.

Remembering and forgetting as context discrimination.

Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training?

Effects of training dose on discrimination and cross-generalization of chlordiazepoxide, pentobarbital and ethanol in the rat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About