4.5 Article

A comparison of the reinforcing efficacy of alcohol in alcohol-preferring (P) and alcohol-nonpreferring (NP) rats

Journal

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 66, Issue 2, Pages 455-463

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0091-3057(00)00217-3

Keywords

alcohol preference; alcohol reward; P rats; NP rats; reinforcement strength; resistance to change; variable-interval schedules; animal model; alcoholism

Funding

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [1R44 AA09840-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A key feature of the selective breeding program that produced alcohol-preferring (P) and alcohol-nonpreferring (NP) rats is that the alcohol was mixed with water. However, humans typically drink sweetened or palatably flavored alcohol. The experiments in this study tested whether the differences in P and NP rats generalize to sweetened alcohol. In Experiment 1, P rats drank more alcohol than NP rats when the vehicle was water, but NP rats drank about as much alcohol as P rats (1.1 to 1.3 g/kg/30 min) when the vehicle was a saccharin solution. Experiment 2 tested whether P rats were more susceptible to the rewarding properties of sweetened alcohol than were NP rats. The criterion for reward strength was the degree to which alcohol reinforced lever pressing persisted, despite increases in the schedule requirements for the alcohol reward. In baseline, lever presses were reinforced with sweetened alcohol and an isocaloric Polycose solution according to two, concurrent, variable-interval 5-s schedules. In subsequent conditions, the interval schedule for alcohol was increased, and then, after a return to baseline, the interval schedule for Polycose was increased. By the criterion of resistance to change, alcohol was a stronger reinforcer than was Polycose, and alcohol was a stronger reinforcer in NP rats than in P rats. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available