4.5 Review

Cocaine choice procedures in animals, humans, and treatment-seekers: Can we bridge the divide?

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
卷 138, 期 -, 页码 133-141

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2015.09.020

关键词

Cocaine addiction; Choice behavior; Laboratory models; Self-administration; Decision-making; Cue reactivity; Delay discounting

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [K01DA037452, R21DA040046, R01DA036553, R21DA034095, R21DA035376]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals with cocaine use disorder chronically self-administer cocaine to the detriment of other rewarding activities, a phenomenon best modeled in laboratory drug-choice procedures. These procedures can evaluate the reinforcing effects of drugs versus comparably valuable alternatives under multiple behavioral arrangements and schedules of reinforcement. However, assessing drug-choice in treatment-seeking or abstaining humans poses unique challenges: for ethical reasons, these populations typically cannot receive active drugs during research studies. Researchers have thus needed to rely on alternative approaches that approximate drug-choice behavior or assess more general forms of decision-making, but whether these alternatives have relevance to real-world drug-taking that can inform clinical trials is not well-understood. In this mini-review, we (A) summarize several important modulatory variables that influence cocaine choice in nonhuman animals and non-treatment seeking humans; (B) discuss some of the ethical considerations that could arise if treatment-seekers are enrolled in drug-choice studies; (C) consider the efficacy of alternative procedures, including non-drug-related decision-making and 'simulated' drug-choice (a choice is made, but no drug is administered) to approximate drug choice; and (D) suggest opportunities for new translational work to bridge the current divide between preclinical and clinical research. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据