Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1991 Sep;56(2):277–288. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-277

Food-paired stimuli as conditioned reinforcers: effects of d-amphetamine.

S L Cohen 1, M N Branch 1
PMCID: PMC1323102  PMID: 1955817

Abstract

Seven pigeons were studied in two experiments in which key pecks were reinforced under a second-order schedule wherein satisfaction of variable-interval schedule requirements produced food or a brief stimulus. In the second part of each session, responses produced only the brief stimulus according to a variable-interval schedule (food extinction). For the 4 pigeons in Experiment 1, the response key was red throughout the session. In separate phases, the brief stimulus was either paired with food, not paired with food, or not presented during extinction. d-Amphetamine (0.3 to 10.0 mg/kg) dose-dependently reduced food-maintained responding during the first part of the session and, at intermediate dosages, increased responding during the extinction portion of the session. The magnitude of these increases, however, did not consistently depend on whether the brief stimulus was paired, not paired, or not presented. It was also true that under nondrug conditions, response rates during extinction did not differ reliably depending on pairing operations for the brief stimulus. In Experiment 2, 3 different pigeons responded under a procedure wherein the key was red in the component with food presentations and blue in the extinction component (i.e., multiple schedule). Again, d-amphetamine produced dose-related decreases in responding during the first part of a session and increases in responding in the second part of the session. These increases, however, were related to the pairing operations; larger increases were observed when the brief stimulus was paired with food than when it was not or when it was not presented at all. Under nondrug conditions, the paired brief stimulus controlled higher response rates during extinction than did a nonpaired stimulus or no stimulus. These findings suggest that d-amphetamine can enhance the efficacy of conditioned reinforcers, and that this effect may be more robust if conditioned reinforcers occur in the context of a signaled period of extinction.

Full text

PDF
277

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Beninger R. J., Hanson D. R., Phillips A. G. The acquisition of responding with conditioned reinforcement: effects of cocaine, (+)-amphetamine and pipradrol. Br J Pharmacol. 1981 Sep;74(1):149–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1981.tb09967.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beninger R. J., Hanson D. R., Phillips A. G. The effects of pipradrol on the acquisitionof responding with conditioned reinforcement: a role for sensory preconditioning. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1980;69(3):235–242. doi: 10.1007/BF00433088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Beninger R. J., Phillips A. G. The effect of pimozide on the establishment of conditioned reinforcement. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1980;68(2):147–153. doi: 10.1007/BF00432132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bond N. W., Sanger D. J., Blackman D. E. Effects of d-amphetamine on the behavior of pigeons maintained by a second-order schedule of reinforcement. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1975 Aug;194(2):327–331. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Catania A. C., Reynolds G. S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3 Suppl):327–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-s327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen S. L., Lentz B. E. Factors influencing responding under multiple schedules of conditioned and unconditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):395–404. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. FRANKS C. M., TROUTON D. Effects of amobarbital sodium and dexamphetamine sulfate on the conditioning of the eyeblink response. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1958 Apr;51(2):220–222. doi: 10.1037/h0042467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Files F.J., Branch M.N., Clody D. Effects of methylphenidate on responding under extinction in the presence and absence of conditioned reinforcement. Behav Pharmacol. 1989;1(2):113–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gonzalez F. A., Byrd L. D. Mathematics underlying the rate-dependency hypothesis. Science. 1977 Feb 11;195(4278):546–550. doi: 10.1126/science.402028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Herling S., Downs D. A., Woods J. H. Cocaine, d-amphetamine, and pentobarbital effects on responding maintained by food or cocaine in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1979 Sep;64(3):261–269. doi: 10.1007/BF00427508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hoffman D. C., Beninger R. J. The effects of pimozide on the establishment of conditioned reinforcement as a function of the amount of conditioning. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1985;87(4):454–460. doi: 10.1007/BF00432512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. KELLEHER R. T., GOLLUB L. R. A review of positive conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:543–597. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-s543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kelly T. H., Thompson T. The effects of methadone on operant behavior maintained with and without conditioned reinforcement in the pigeon. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1985;86(1-2):212–216. doi: 10.1007/BF00431712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mason S. T., Robbins T. W. Noradrenaline and conditioned reinforcement. Behav Neural Biol. 1979 Apr;25(4):523–534. doi: 10.1016/s0163-1047(79)90302-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mazurski E. J., Beninger R. J. The effects of (+)-amphetamine and apomorphine on responding for a conditioned reinforcer. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1986;90(2):239–243. doi: 10.1007/BF00181249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Robbins T. W., Koob G. F. Pipradrol enhances reinforcing properties of stimuli paired with brain stimulation. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1978 Mar;8(3):219–222. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(78)90308-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Robbins T. W. The acquisition of responding with conditioned reinforcement: effects of pipradrol, methylphenidate, d-amphetamine, and nomifensine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1978 Jun 15;58(1):79–87. doi: 10.1007/BF00426794. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Stubbs D. A., Cohen S. L. Second-order schedules: comparison of different procedures for scheduling paired and nonpaired brief stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Nov;18(3):403–413. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Stubbs D. A. Second-order schedules and the problem of conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Nov;16(3):289–313. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Taylor J. R., Robbins T. W. Enhanced behavioural control by conditioned reinforcers following microinjections of d-amphetamine into the nucleus accumbens. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1984;84(3):405–412. doi: 10.1007/BF00555222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES