Psychopharmacology

, Volume 176, Issue 3–4, pp 274–280 | Cite as

Dose and schedule determinants of cocaine choice under concurrent variable-interval schedules in rhesus monkeys

Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

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.

Objective

The present study was designed to examine the generality of this finding to other behavioral conditions.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Drug abuse Self-administration Choice Matching Cocaine Monkey 

References

  1. Ahmed SH, Koob GF (1999) Long-lasting increase in the set point for cocaine self-administration after escalation in rats. Psychopharmacology 146:303–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson KG, Woolverton WL (2000) Concurrent variable-interval drug self-administration and the generalized matching law: a drug class comparison. Behav Pharmacol 11:413–420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson KG, Velkey AJ, Woolverton WL (2002) The generalized matching law as a predictor of choice between cocaine and food in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology 163:319–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum WM (1974) On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav 22:231–242Google Scholar
  5. Bickel WT, DeGrandpre RJ, Higgins ST (1995) The behavioral economics of concurrent drug reinforcers: a review and reanalysis of drug self-administration research. Psychopharmacology 118:250–259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozarth MA, Wise RA (1985) Toxicity associated with long-term intravenous heroin and cocaine self-administration in the rat. JAMA 254:81–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Catania AC (1963) Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. J Exp Anal Behav 6:299–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Davison M, McCarthy D (1988) The Matching Law: a research review. Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. Deneau G, Yanagita T, Seevers MH (1969) Self-administration of psychoactive substances by the monkey. Psychopharmacologia 16:30–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Fleshler M, Hoffman HS (1962) A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav 5:529–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrnstein RJ (1961) Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 4:267–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrnstein RJ (1970) On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav 13:243–266Google Scholar
  15. Heyman GM, Luce RD (1979) Operant matching is not a logical consequence of reinforcement rate maximization. Anim Learn Behav 7:133–140Google Scholar
  16. Heyman GM, Oldfather CM (1992) Inelastic preference for ethanol in rats: an analysis of ethanol’s reinforcing effects. Psychol Sci 3:1–9Google Scholar
  17. Higgins ST (1997) The influence of alternative reinforcers on cocaine use and abuse: a brief review. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 57:419–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Iglauer C, Woods JH (1974) Concurrent performances: reinforcement by different doses of intravenous cocaine in rhesus monkeys. J Exp Anal Behav 22:179–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Johanson CE, Schuster CR (1975) A choice procedure for drug reinforcers: cocaine and methylphenidate in the rhesus monkey. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 193:676–688PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Johanson CE, Balster RL, Bonese K (1976) Self-administration of psychomotor stimulant drugs: the effects of unlimited access. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 4:45–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mantsch JR, Ho A, Schlussman SD, Kreek MJ (2001) Predictable individual differences in the initiation of cocaine self-administration by rats under extended-access conditions are dose-dependent. Psychopharmacology 157:31–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. McMillan DE, Hardwick WC (1996) Pentobarbital discrimination and generalization to other drugs under multiple fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedules. Behav Pharmacol 7:285–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Neuringer AJ (1967) Effects of reinforcement magnitude on choice and rate of responding. J Exp Anal Behav 10:417–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Plaud JJ (1992) The prediction and control of behavior revisited: a review of the matching law. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 23:25–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Premack D (1965) Reinforcement theory. In: Levine D (ed) Nebraska Symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska, Nebraska, pp 123–180Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Roberts DC, Brebner K, Vincler M, Lynch WJ (2002) Patterns of cocaine self-administration in rats produced by various access conditions under a discrete trials procedure. Drug Alcohol Depend 67:291–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Shull RL, Pliskoff SS (1967) Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. J Exp Anal Behav 10:517–527PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Stolerman IP (1989) Discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine in rats trained under different schedules of reinforcement. Psychopharmacology 97:131–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Todorov JC (1973) Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. J Exp Anal Behav 19:451–458Google Scholar
  33. Tornatzky W, Miczek KA (2000) Cocaine self-administration “binges”: transition from behavioral and autonomic regulation toward homeostatic dysregulation in rats. Psychopharmacology 148:289–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Woolverton WL (1996) Intravenous self-administration of cocaine under concurrent VI schedules of reinforcement. Psychopharmacology 127:195–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Woolverton WL, Alling K (1999) Choice under concurrent VI schedules: comparison of behavior maintained by cocaine or food. Psychopharmacology 141:47–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and Human BehaviorUniversity of Mississippi Medical CenterJacksonUSA

Personalised recommendations