Abstract
Eight rats were trained to discriminate pentobarbital from saline under a concurrent variable-interval (VI) VI schedule, on which responses on the pentobarbital-biased lever after pentobarbital were reinforced under VI 20 s and responses on the saline-biased lever were reinforced under VI 80 s. After saline, the reinforcement contingencies programmed on the two levers were reversed. The rats made 62.3% of their responses on the pentobarbital-biased lever after pentobarbital and 72.2% on the saline-biased lever after saline, both of which are lower than predicted by the matching law. When the schedule was changed to concurrent VI 50 s VI 50 s for test sessions with saline and the training dose of pentobarbital, responding on the pentobarbital-biased lever after the training dose of pentobarbital and on the saline-biased lever after saline became nearly equal, even during the first 2 min of the session, suggesting that the presence or absence of the training drug was exerting minimal control over responding and making the determination of dose-effect relations of drugs difficult to interpret. When the pentobarbital dose-response curve was determined under the concurrent VI 50-s VI 50-s schedule, responding was fairly evenly distributed on both levers for most rats. Therefore, 6 additional rats were trained to respond under a concurrent VI 60-s VI 240-s schedule. Under this schedule, the rats made 62.6% of their responses on the pentobarbital-biased lever after pentobarbital and 73.5% of their responses on the saline-biased lever after saline, which also is lower than the percentages predicted by perfect matching. When the schedule was changed to a concurrent VI 150-s VI 150-s schedule for 5-min test sessions with additional drugs, the presence or absence of pentobarbital continued to control responding in most rats, and it was possible to generate graded dose-response curves for pentobarbital and other drugs using the data from these 5-min sessions. The dose-response curves generated under these conditions were similar to the dose-response curves generated using other reinforcement schedules and other species.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (197.4 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Baum W. M. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):269–281. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herrnstein R. J. Formal properties of the matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jan;21(1):159–164. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herrnstein R. J., Loveland D. H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):107–116. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mark T. A., Gallistel C. R. Kinetics of matching. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1994 Jan;20(1):79–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Massey B.W., McMillan D.E., Wessinger W.D. Discriminative-stimulus control by morphine in the pigeon under a fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement. Behav Pharmacol. 1992 Oct;3(5):475–488. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McMillan D. E., Li M. Drug discrimination under a concurrent fixed-ratio fixed-ratio schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Sep;72(2):187–204. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.72-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McMillan D. E., Li M. Effects of training history on drug discrimination under concurrent fixed-interval schedules. Behav Pharmacol. 1999 Jul;10(4):389–400. doi: 10.1097/00008877-199907000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McMillan D. E., Li M., Hardwick W. C. Drug discrimination under a concurrent fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Sep;68(2):193–217. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McMillan D. E., Li M., Snodgrass S. H. Effects of drugs on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule performance. Behav Pharmacol. 1998 Dec;9(8):663–670. doi: 10.1097/00008877-199812000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McMillan D. E., Sun W. L., Hardwick W. C. Effects of drug discrimination history on the generalization of pentobarbital to other drugs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1996 Jul;278(1):50–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McMillan D. E., Wenger G. R. Bias of phencyclidine discrimination by the schedule of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Jul;42(1):51–66. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Snodgrass S. H., McMillan D. E. Drug discrimination under a concurrent schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 May;65(3):495–512. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Snodgrass S. H., McMillan D. E. Effects of schedule of reinforcement on a pentobarbital discrimination in rats. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Sep;56(2):313–329. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stoleman I.P. Measures of stimulus generalization in drug discrimination experiments. Behav Pharmacol. 1991 Nov;2(4-5):265–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Willetts J., Balster R. L. Pentobarbital-like discriminative stimulus effects of N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1989 May;249(2):438–443. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Young A.M. The time is ripe for an experimental analysis of measurement issues Commentary on Stolerman "Measurement issues in drug discrimination". Behav Pharmacol. 1991 Nov;2(4-5):287–291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]