Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2002 Jan;77(1):91–104. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-91

Drug discrimination under concurrent variable-ratio variable-ratio schedules.

D E McMillan 1, W C Hardwick 1, Mi Li 1
PMCID: PMC1284849  PMID: 11831785

Abstract

Pigeons were trained to discriminate 5 mg/kg pentobarbital from saline under concurrent variable-ratio (VR) VR schedules, in which responses on the pentobarbital-biased lever were reinforced under the VR schedule with the smaller response requirements when pentobarbital was given before the session, and responses on the saline-biased key were reinforced under the VR schedule with the larger response requirements. When saline was administered before the session, the reinforcement contingencies associated with the two response keys were reversed. When responding stabilized under concurrent VR 20 VR 30, concurrent VR 10 VR 40, or concurrent VR 5 VR 50 schedules, pigeons responded almost exclusively on the key on which fewer responses were required to produce the reinforcer. When other doses of pentobarbital and other drugs were substituted for the training dose, low doses of all drugs produced responding on the saline-biased key. Higher doses of pentobarbital and chlordiazepoxide produced responding only on the pentobarbital-biased key, whereas higher doses of ethanol and phencyclidine produced responding only on this key less often. d-Amphetamine produced responding primarily on the saline-biased key. When drugs generalized to pentobarbital, the shape of the generalization curve under concurrent VR VR schedules was more often graded than quantal in shape. Thus, drug discrimination can be established under concurrent VR VR schedules, but the shapes of drug-discrimination dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules more closely resemble those seen under interval schedules than those seen under fixed-ratio schedules. Graded dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules may relate to probability matching and difficulty in discriminating differences in reinforcement frequency.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (174.2 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. BITTERMAN M. E. PHYLETIC DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING. Am Psychol. 1965 Jun;20:396–410. doi: 10.1037/h0022328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Bickel W. K., Etzel B. C. The quantal nature of controlling stimulus-response relations as measured in tests of stimulus generalization. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Sep;44(2):245–270. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Colpaert F.C. The discriminative response: an elementary particle of behavior Commentary on Stolerman "Measures of stimulus generalization in drug discrimination experiments". Behav Pharmacol. 1991 Nov;2(4-5):283–286. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gouvier W. D., Akins F. R., Trapold M. A. Assessment of drug state dimensionality via drug-drug training and stimulus generalization testing. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1984 Nov;21(5):687–693. doi: 10.1016/s0091-3057(84)80003-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Holtzman S. G., Steinfels G. F., Schmidt W. K. Assessing spiradoline-like discriminative effects of DuP 747: influence of route of administration. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1994 Mar;47(3):487–491. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(94)90148-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Järbe T. U., Ohlin G. C. Discriminative effects of combinations of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and pentobarbital in pigeons. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1979 Jun 21;63(3):233–239. doi: 10.1007/BF00433555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kline F. S., Young A. M. Differential modification of pentobarbital stimulus control by d-amphetamine and ethanol. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1986 May;24(5):1305–1313. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(86)90189-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Leberer M. R., Fowler S. C. Drug discrimination and generalization in pigeons. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1977 Nov;7(5):483–486. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(77)90219-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Li M., McMillan D. E. The effects of drug discrimination history on drug discrimination and on punished and unpunished responding. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1998 Sep;61(1):93–105. doi: 10.1016/s0091-3057(98)00077-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Macdonall J. S. Concurrent variable-ratio schedules: Implications for the generalized matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jul;50(1):55–64. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. McMillan D. E., Cole-Fullenwider D. A., Hardwick W. C., Wenger G. R. Phencyclidine discrimination in the pigeon using color tracking under second-order schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):143–147. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. McMillan D. E., Li M. Drug discrimination under two concurrent fixed-interval fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Jul;74(1):55–77. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
  19. McMillan D. E., Li M., Hardwick W. C. Schedule control of quantal and graded dose-effect curves in a drug-drug-saline discrimination. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2001 Mar;68(3):395–402. doi: 10.1016/s0091-3057(00)00474-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. McMillan D.E., Hardwick W.C. Pentobarbital discrimination and generalization to other drugs under multiple fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedules. Behav Pharmacol. 1996 May;7(3):285–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Picker M. J. Kappa agonist and antagonist properties of mixed action opioids in a pigeon drug discrimination procedure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994 Mar;268(3):1190–1198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. 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]
  25. Stoleman I.P. Measures of stimulus generalization in drug discrimination experiments. Behav Pharmacol. 1991 Nov;2(4-5):265–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Witkin J. M., Carter R. B., Dykstra L. A. Discriminative stimulus properties of d-amphetamine-pentobarbital combinations. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1980;68(3):269–276. doi: 10.1007/BF00428114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Young A. M., Masaki M. A., Geula C. Discriminative stimulus effects of morphine: effects of training dose on agonist and antagonist effects of mu opioids. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1992 Apr;261(1):246–257. [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