Psychopharmacologia

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 239–251 | Cite as

Effects of dexamphetamine, amylobarbitone sodium and their mixture on sensory contingent bar pressing behaviour in the rat

  • Peter H. Glow
  • Alan Russell
Animal Studies
Received:

Abstract

The effects of the chronic administration of dexamphetamine, (one of five doses from 0.1 to 1.6 mg/kg), amylobarbitone sodium, (one of five doses from 1.0 to 16.0 mg/kg) and a mixture of the two (all of five doses, all at a constant ratio of 1.10 by weight) on sensory contingent bar pressing (SCBP) were investigated. 144 female Wistar rats bar pressed for 3 sec light and sound change as the only reward for their behaviour. The dose-response relationship under both dexamphetamine and the mixture took the form of an inverted U shaped function. Responding was not affected by amylobarbitone. The optimum doses of dexamphetamine and the mixture produced the same significant increase in SCBP, an effect which emerged over the initial trails. The results suggest that response feedback from the environment is magnified and thereby increases the reward value of SCBP. SCBP seems to have a number of advantages for the study of psychoactive drugs and intrinsic motivation.

Key words

Sensory Reinforcement Instrinsic Motivation Dexamphetamine Amylobarbitone Sodium Drug Mixtures Reward Value Enhanced 
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. Berlyne, D. E.: The reward value of indifferent stimulation. In: Reinforcement. J. T. Tapp, G. W. Meier (Eds.) New York: Academic Press 1969.Google Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D. E., Koenig, I. V. D., Hirota, T.: Novelty, arousal, and the reinforcement of diversive exploration. J. comp. physiol. Psychol. 62, 222–226 (1966).Google Scholar
  3. De Oliveira, L., Graeff, F. G.: Comparisons between the effects of apomorphine and amphetamine on operant behaviour. Europ. J. Pharmacol. 18, 159–165 (1972).Google Scholar
  4. Glick, D. S.: Facilitation or impairment of learning by dexamphetamine as a function of stimuli. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 21, 353–360 (1971).Google Scholar
  5. Glow, P. H.: Some acquisition and performance characteristics of response contingent sensory reinforcement. Australian J. Psychol. 22, 145–154 (1970).Google Scholar
  6. Glow, P. H., Roberts, J. E., Russell, A.: Response contingent auditory reinforcement in the rat. Aust. J. Psychol. 23, 125–131 (1971).Google Scholar
  7. Kiernan, C. C.: Modification of the effects of amphetamine sulphate by past experience in the hooded rat. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 8, 23–31 (1965).Google Scholar
  8. Kumar, R.: Psycho-active drugs, exploratory activity and fear. Nature (Lond.) 218, 587–588 (1968).Google Scholar
  9. Kumar, R.: Extinction of Fear I: Effects of amylobarbitone and dexamphetamine given separately and in combination on fear and exploratory behaviour in rats. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 19, 163–187 (1971).Google Scholar
  10. Lyon, M., Randrup, A.: The dose-response effect of amphetamine upon avoidance behaviour in the rat seen as a function of increasing stereotypy. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 23, 334–347 (1972).Google Scholar
  11. Miller, N. E.: The analyses of motivational effects illustrated by experiments on amylobarbitone sodium. In: Animal behaviour and drug action. H. Steinberg, A. V. S. De Reuck, J. Knight (Eds.). London: Churchill 1964.Google Scholar
  12. Olds, J.: The central nervous system and the reinforcement of behaviour. Amer. Psychologist 24, 114–132 (1969).Google Scholar
  13. Porsolt, R. D., Joyce, D., Summerfield, A.: Lack of tolerance to an amphetamine-barbiturate mixture and to its components. Nature (Lond.) 223, 1277–1278 (1969).Google Scholar
  14. Rushton, R., Steinberg, H.: Mutual potentiation of amphetamine and amylobarbitone measured by activity in rats. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 31, 295–305 (1963).Google Scholar
  15. Rushton, R., Steinberg, H.: Modification of behavioural effects of drugs by past experience. In: Animal behaviour and drug action. H. Steinberg, A. V. S. De Reuck, J. Knight (Eds.), pp. 207–223. London: Churchill 1964.Google Scholar
  16. Rushton, R., Steinberg, H., Tinson, C.: Effects of a single experience on subsequent reactions to drugs. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 20, 99–105 (1963).Google Scholar
  17. Steinberg, H., Rushton, R., Tinson, C.: Modification of the effects of amphetamine-barbiturate mixture by the past experience of rats. Nature (Lond.) 192, 533–535 (1961).Google Scholar
  18. Stretch, R.: Effects of amphetamine and pentobarbitone on exploratory behaviour in rats. Nature (Lond.) 199, 787–789 (1963).Google Scholar
  19. Stein, L.: Amphetamine and neural reward mechanisms. In: Animal behaviour and drug action. H. Steinberg, A. V. S. De Reuck, J. Knight (Eds.), pp. 91–113. London: Churchill 1964.Google Scholar
  20. Weijnen, J. A. W. M.: Effects of amphetamine-amylobarbitone mixtures on ambulation of rats in Y-mazes. Europ. J. Pharmacol. 5, 180–184 (1969).Google Scholar
  21. Winer, B. J.: Statistical principles in experimental designs. New York: McGraw-Hill 1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter H. Glow
    • 1
  • Alan Russell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations