4.4 Article

Environmental modulation of cocaine self-administration in the rat

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 192, 期 3, 页码 397-406

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-007-0717-z

关键词

self-administration; cocaine; sensitization; environmental; addiction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale Previous studies have shown that environmental context can powerfully modulate the induction of psychomotor sensitization to cocaine in the rat. Rats that receive repeated administrations of cocaine in association with environmental novelty exhibit greater psychomotor sensitization than animals that receive the same treatments in their home cages. Objectives The goal of the present study was to investigate whether environmental context can exert its modulatory influence also on cocaine self- administration. Materials and methods Independent groups of rats with intravenous catheters were given the possibility to selfadminister different doses of cocaine (0.0, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 mg/kg per infusion) under two environmental conditions. Some animals were housed in the self-administration cages (home groups), whereas other rats were transported to the self- administration cages only for the test sessions (novelty groups). Results Environmental '' novelty '' facilitated the acquisition of cocaine self- administration at the doses of 0.2 and 0.4 mg/kg per infusion. When rats were given access to a higher dose of cocaine (0.8 mg/kg per infusion), there were no significant group differences in drug taking. Environmental context had no effect on the self-administration of the vehicle. Thus, it appears that environmental '' novelty '' produced a shift to the left in the dose-effect curve for cocaine self-administration. Furthermore, '' novelty '' enhanced the motivation of the rats to work for cocaine, as indicated by the results of a progressive ratio procedure. Conclusions The present findings demonstrate for the first time that the environment surrounding drug taking can alter both the intake of and motivation for cocaine.

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

4.4
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