Psychopharmacologia

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 299–314 | Cite as

Alterations by centrally acting drugs of the suppression of self-stimulation behavior in the rat by tetrabenazine, physostigmine, chlorpromazine and pentobarbital

  • M. E. Olds
Animal Studies
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

The effects of pre-treatment (32 min) with d-amphetamine (2 mg/kg), scopolamine (0.5 mg/kg), and chlordiazepoxide (5 mg/kg) were studied on the suppression of self-stimulation behavior in the male albino rat by central depressants. The antagonism of each compound was determined against the suppressant action of tetrabenazine (2 mg/kg), physostigmine (0.1 mg/kg), chlorpromazine (2.5 mg/kg) and pentobarbital sodium (10 mg/kg).

Against the suppression produced by tetrabenazine, only d-amphetamine gave partial protection throughout the test. Scopolamine and chlordiazepoxide had a transient delaying action. Against the suppressant effect of chlorpromazine, protection was given by d-amphetamine, scopolamine and chlordiazepoxide.

Against physostigmine, scopolamine gave full protection, d-amphetamine partial protection, and chlordiazepoxide was without effect.

Against the effect of pentobarbital on self-stimulation behavior, there was no protection by d-amphetamine and scopolamine when the animal showed motor deficits, and a stimulant action when these had worn off, but the rates of responding were still depressed. Chlordiazepoxide potentiated the action of pentobarbital.

These results are interpreted in terms of a short-run stimulant action on depressed rates of responding, and a longer-run protective action against changes produced by the compounds suppressing self-stimulation behavior in levels of transmitter-like substances.

Key words

Self-Stimulation Tetrabenazine Chlorpromazine Physostigmine Pentobarbital d-Amphetamine Scopolamine Chlordiazepoxide 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Black, W. C., Cooper, B. R.: Reduction of electrically-rewarded behavior by interference with monoamine synthesis. Physiol. Behav. 5, 1405–1409 (1970).Google Scholar
  2. Domino, E. F., Olds, M. E.: Cholinergic inhibition of self-stimulation behavior. J. Pharmacol. exp. Ther. 164, 202–211 (1968).Google Scholar
  3. — —: Effects of d-amphetamine, scopolamine, chlordiazepoxide and diphenylhydantoin on self-stimulation behavior and brain acetylcholine. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 23, 1–16 (1972).Google Scholar
  4. Fuxe, K.: The distribution of monoamine nerve terminals in the central nervous system. Acta physiol. scand. 64, Suppl., 247 (1965).Google Scholar
  5. König, J. F. R., Klippel, R. A.: The rat brain: A stereotaxic atlas of the forebrain and lower parts of the brain stem. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins 1963.Google Scholar
  6. Olds, J., Travis, R. P.: Effects of chlorpromazine, meprobamate, pentobarbital and morphine on self-stimulation. J. Pharmacol. exp. Ther. 128, 397–404 (1960).Google Scholar
  7. Olds, M. E.: Facilitatory action of diazepam and chlordiazepoxide on hypothalamic reward behavior. J. comp. physiol. Psychol. 62, 136–140 (1966).Google Scholar
  8. —: Comparative effects of amphetamine, scopolamine, chlordiazepoxide and diphenylhydantoin on operant and extinction behavior with brain stimulation and food reward. Neuropharmacology 9, 519–532 (1970).Google Scholar
  9. —, Domino, E. F.: Differential effects of cholinergic agonists on self-stimulation and escape behavior. J. Pharmacol. exp. Ther. 166, 189–204 (1969).Google Scholar
  10. —, Olds, J.: Approach-avoidance analysis of rat diencephalon. J. comp. Neurol. 120, 259–295 (1963).Google Scholar
  11. Poschel, B. P. H., Ninteman, F. W.: Hypothalamic self-stimulation: its suppression by blockade of norepinephrine biosynthesis and reinstatement by methamphetamine. Life Sci. 5, 11–16 (1966).Google Scholar
  12. Rech, R. H., Borys, H. K., Moore, K. E.: Alterations in behavior and brain catecholamine levels in rats treated with α-methyltyrosine. J. Pharmacol. exp. Ther. 153, 412–419 (1966).Google Scholar
  13. Stark, P., Boyd, E. S.: Effects of cholinergic drugs on hypothalamic self-stimulation response rates in dogs. Amer. J. Physiol. 205, 745–748 (1963).Google Scholar
  14. Stein, L.: Self-stimulation of the brain and the central stimulant action of amphetamine. Fed. Proc. 23, 836–850 (1964).Google Scholar
  15. —: Chemistry of reward and punishment in Psychopharmacology, A review of progress 1957–1967, D. H. Efron, J. O. Cole, J. Levine and J. R. Wittenborn (eds.), pp. 105–135. PHS Pub. 1836, Supt. of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 1968.Google Scholar
  16. Weissman, A., Koe, B. K.: Behavioral effects of 1-α-methyltyrosine, an inhibitor of tyrosine hydroxylase. Life Sci. 4, 1037–1048 (1965).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. E. Olds
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of BiologyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations