Dose and schedule determinants of cocaine choice under concurrent variable-interval schedules in rhesus monkeys
Drug abuse can be characterized as a condition in which the choice to self-administer a drug is excessive, even exclusive of the choice of other reinforcers. Under concurrent interval schedules of reinforcement, subjects typically distribute behavior to match reinforcement allocation. However, research has shown that when behavior is maintained by different doses of cocaine under concurrent variable-interval (conc VI) schedules, exclusive choice of the higher dose is the rule.
The present study was designed to examine the generality of this finding to other behavioral conditions.
Rhesus monkeys (n=5) lever pressed under a conc VI 60-s VI 60-s or a conc VI 600-s VI 600-s schedule of cocaine (i.v.) presentation. Doses differing by 4-fold (0.025 versus 0.1, 0.05 versus 0.2 mg/kg per injection) were available for lever pressing.
Monkeys responded more on the lever associated with the higher dose when saline or a lower dose was the alternative. The distribution of responses was well predicted by relative drug intake, but with consistent undermatching. Exclusive high-dose responding was seen in about half of the individual session intervals under the shorter schedule, rarely under the longer schedule, and was not seen over the session.
Under conc VI schedules, behavior was apportioned between two different doses in a manner that favored the higher dose but undermatched relative intake. Exclusive high-dose choice may occur when cocaine is frequently available but is not an invariable outcome of the choice between a low and a high dose of cocaine.
KeywordsDrug abuse Self-administration Choice Matching Cocaine Monkey
- Baum WM (1974) On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav 22:231–242Google Scholar
- Davison M, McCarthy D (1988) The Matching Law: a research review. Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- deVilliers P (1977) Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect. In: Honig WK, Staddon JER (eds) Handbook of operant behavior, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp 233–287Google Scholar
- Fantino E, Squires N, Delbruck N, Peterson C (1972) Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer. J Exp Anal Behav 18:35–43Google Scholar
- Herrnstein RJ (1970) On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav 13:243–266Google Scholar
- Heyman GM, Luce RD (1979) Operant matching is not a logical consequence of reinforcement rate maximization. Anim Learn Behav 7:133–140Google Scholar
- Heyman GM, Oldfather CM (1992) Inelastic preference for ethanol in rats: an analysis of ethanol’s reinforcing effects. Psychol Sci 3:1–9Google Scholar
- Iglauer C, Llewellyn ME, Woods JH (1976) Concurrent schedules of cocaine injection in rhesus monkeys: dose variations under independent and non-independent variable-interval procedures. Pharmacol Rev 27:367–383Google Scholar
- Premack D (1965) Reinforcement theory. In: Levine D (ed) Nebraska Symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska, Nebraska, pp 123–180Google Scholar
- Rachlin HC, Baum WM (1969) Response rate as a function of amount of reinforcement for a signaled concurrent response. J Exp Anal Behav 12:11–16Google Scholar
- Schneider JW (1973) Reinforcer effectiveness as a function of reinforcer rate and magnitude: a comparison of concurrent performances. J Exp Anal Behav 20:461–471Google Scholar
- Todorov JC (1973) Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. J Exp Anal Behav 19:451–458Google Scholar