4.2 Article

A CHOICE PROCEDURE TO ASSESS THE AVERSIVE EFFECTS OF DRUGS IN RODENTS

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR
Volume 93, Issue 2, Pages 203-223

Publisher

SOC EXP ANALYSIS BEHAVIOR INC
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2010.93-203

Keywords

choice; punishment; aversive stimuli; acquisition; reversal learning; histamine; rat; lever press

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [T32 DA007268, T32 DA007267]
  2. University of Michigan Substance Abuse Research Center (UMSARC) Innovative Approaches to Investigate Aspect of Drug Use and Abuse [U026035]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The goal of this series of experiments was to develop an operant choice procedure to examine rapidly the punishing effects of intravenous drugs in rats. First, the cardiovascular effects of experimenter-administered intravenous histamine, a known aversive drug, were assessed to determine a biologically active dose range. Next, rats responded oil each of two levers with concurrently available fixed-ratio 1 schedules of food reinforcement.. Intravenous histamine was delivered along with food when responses were made on one of the options, and the lever on which both food and histamine were contingent was switched on a regular basis. A dose of 1.0 mg/kg/inj of histamine was effective in moving responding to the alternate lever, whereas saline, 0.1, or 0.3 mg/kg/inj of histamine were not. Histamine injections produced reliable selection of the alternate lever when they were presented oil the same lever for three consecutive sessions, but not when they were switched between levers oil each session. In addition, histamine produced greater selection of the alternate lever when it was presented with shorter intertrial interval durations. These findings indicate that, with appropriate parameters, the aversive effects of histamine and perhaps other drugs call be established rapidly using a concurrent choice procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available