, Volume 182, Issue 1, pp 186–193 | Cite as

Reinforcing effects of modafinil: influence of dose and behavioral demands following drug administration

  • William W. Stoops
  • Joshua A. Lile
  • Mark T. Fillmore
  • Paul E. A. Glaser
  • Craig R. Rush
Original Investigation



The reinforcing effects of stimulant drugs are modulated by behavioral demands following drug administration.


The objective of this study was to assess the reinforcing effects of modafinil, a drug with purportedly low abuse potential, under different behavioral demands using a modified progressive-ratio procedure.


The reinforcing effects of oral modafinil (0, 100, 200, and 400 mg) were assessed in six healthy adult volunteers under both performance and relaxation conditions. Performance sessions required volunteers to complete simple arithmetic problems for three 50-min blocks. Relaxation sessions required volunteers to sit quietly in a semireclined position in a darkened room for three 50-min blocks. Two sampling sessions (one performance and one relaxation session) always preceded two self-administration sessions (one performance and one relaxation session), and the order of performance and relaxation sessions was constant within a dose condition.


Modafinil significantly increased break point and number of capsules earned on the modified progressive-ratio procedure as an increasing function of dose under the performance, but not the relaxation, condition. Modafinil produced comparable stimulant-like subjective ratings under both the performance and relaxation conditions.


The findings of the present experiment demonstrate that modafinil can function as a reinforcer and that the reinforcing effects of modafinil are influenced by behavioral demands following drug administration, similar to those of other stimulant drugs.


Modafinil Human Reinforcement Context Subject-rated effects Progressive ratio Performance and relaxation 



This research was supported by Grant DA12665 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (C.R.R.). The authors wish to thank Frances P. Wagner, RN, Michelle D. Gray, Jamie L. Haga, Derek E. Roe, Thomas E. Wooters, and Andrea R. Vansickel for their expert medical and technical assistance. The present experiment complied with all current laws in the USA.


  1. Abreu ME, Griffiths RR (1996) Drug tasting may confound human drug discrimination studies. Psychopharmacology 125:255–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broughton RJ, Fleming JA, George CF, Hill JD, Kryger MH, Moldofsky H, Montplaisir JY, Morehouse RL, Moscovitch A, Murphy WF (1997) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial of modafinil in the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy. Neurology 49:444–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter GT, Weiss MD, Lou JS, Jensen MP, Abresch RT, Martin TK, Hecht TW, Han JJ, Weydt P, Kraft GH (2005) Modafinil to treat fatigue in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: an open label pilot study. Am J Hospice Palliat Care 22:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chutuape MA, de Wit H (1995) Preferences for ethanol and diazepam in anxious individuals: an evaluation of the self-medication hypothesis. Psychopharmacology 121:91–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Comer SD, Collins ED, Fischman MW (1997) Choice between money and intranasal heroin in morphine maintained humans. Behav Pharmacol 8:677–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comer SD, Collins ED, Wilson ST, Donovan MR, Foltin RW, Fischman MW (1998) Effects of an alternative reinforcer on intravenous heroin self-administration by humans. Eur J Pharmacol 345:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dackis CA, Kampman KM, Lynch KG, Pettinati HM, O'Brien CP (2005) A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of modafinil for cocaine dependence. Neuropsychopharmacology 30:205–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. de la Garza R, Johanson CE (1987) The effects of food deprivation on the self-administration of psychoactive drugs. Drug Alcohol Depend 19:17–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Deroche-Gamonet V, Darnaudéry M, Bruins-Slot L, Piat F, Le Moal M, Piazza PV (2002) Study of the addictive potential of modafinil in naïve and cocaine-experienced rats. Psychopharmacology 161:387–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Foltin RW, Fischman MW (1992) Self-administration of cocaine by humans: choice between smoked and intravenous cocaine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 261:841–849PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gold LH, Balster RL (1996) Evaluation of the cocaine-like discriminative stimulus effects and reinforcing effects of modafinil. Psychopharmacology 126:286–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grabowski J, Shearer J, Merrill J, Negus SS (2004) Agonist-like, replacement pharmacotherapy for stimulant abuse and dependence. Addict Behav 29:1439–1464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffiths RR, Bigelow GE, Henningfield JE (1980a) Similarities in animal and human drug-taking behavior. In: Mello NK (ed) Advances in substance abuse: behavioral and biological research. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 1–90Google Scholar
  14. Griffiths RR, Bigelow GE, Liebson I, Kaliszak JE (1980b) Drug preference in humans: double-blind choice comparison of pentobarbital, diazepam and placebo. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 215:649–661PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffiths RR, McLeod DR, Bigelow GE, Liebson IA, Roache JD, Nowowieski P (1984) Comparison of diazepam and oxazepam: preference, liking and extent of abuse. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 229:501–508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jasinski DR (2000) An evaluation of the abuse potential of modafinil using methylphenidate as a reference. J Psychopharmacol 14:53–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones HE, Garrett BE, Griffiths RR (2001) Reinforcing effects of oral cocaine: contextual determinants. Psychopharmacology 154:143–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lamb RJ, Preston KL, Schindler CW, Meisch RA, Davis F, Katz JL, Henningfield JE, Goldberg SR (1991) The reinforcing and subjective effects of morphine in post-addicts: a dose-response study. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 259:1165–1173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lile JA, Wang Z, Woolverton WL, France JE, Gregg TC, Davies HM, Nader MA (2003) The reinforcing efficacy of psychostimulants in rhesus monkeys: the role of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 307:356–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Myrick H, Malcolm R, Taylor B, LaRowe S (2004) Modafinil: preclinical, clinical, and post-marketing surveillance—a review of abuse liability issues. Ann Clin Psychiatry 16:101–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Oliveto AH, Bickel WK, Hughes JR, Shea PJ, Higgins ST, Fenwick JW (1992) Caffeine drug discrimination in humans: acquisition, specificity and correlation with self-reports. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 261:885–889PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rabkin JG, McElhiney MC, Rabkin R, Ferrando SJ (2004) Modafinil treatment for fatigue in HIV+ patients: a pilot study. J Clin Psychiatry 65:1688–1695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Randall DC, Shneerson JM, Plaha KK, File SE (2003) Modafinil affects mood, but not cognitive function, in healthy young volunteers. Hum Psychopharmacol 18:163–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Roehrs T, Papineau K, Rosenthal L, Roth T (1999) Sleepiness and the reinforcing and subjective effects of methylphenidate. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 7:145–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rush CR, Essman WD, Simpson CA, Baker RW (2001) Reinforcing and subject-rated effects of methylphenidate and d-amphetamine in non-drug-abusing volunteers. J Clin Psychopharmacol 21:273–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rush CR, Kelly TH, Hays LR, Baker RW, Wooten AF (2002a) Acute behavioral and physiological effects of modafinil in drug abusers. Behav Pharmacol 13:105–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rush CR, Kelly TH, Hays LR, Wooten AF (2002b) Discriminative-stimulus effects of modafinil in cocaine-trained humans. Drug Alcohol Depend 67:311–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rush CR, Stoops WW, Hays LR, Glaser PEA, Hays LS (2003) Risperidone attenuates the discriminative-stimulus and subject-rated effects of d-amphetamine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 306:195–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Selzer ML (1971) The Michigan alcoholism screening test: the quest for a new diagnostic instrument. Am J Psychiatry 127:1653–1658PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Silverman K, Kirby KC, Griffiths RR (1994a) Modulation of drug reinforcement by behavioral requirements following drug ingestion. Psychopharmacology 114:243–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silverman K, Mumford GK, Griffiths RR (1994b) Enhancing caffeine reinforcement by behavioral requirements following drug ingestion. Psychopharmacology 114:424–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skinner HA (1982) The drug abuse screening test. Addict Behav 7:363–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Stoops WW, Glaser PEA, Rush CR (2003) Reinforcing, subject-rated, and physiological effects of intranasal methylphenidate: a dose-response analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 71:179–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Stoops WW, Glaser PEA, Fillmore MT, Rush CR (2004) Reinforcing, subject-rated, performance, and physiological effects of methylphenidate and d-amphetamine in stimulant abusing humans. J Psychopharmacol 18:534–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Stoops WW, Lile JA, Fillmore MT, Glaser PEA, Rush CR (2005) Reinforcing effects of methylphenidate: influence of dose and behavioral demands following drug administration. Psychopharmacology 177:349–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Turner DC, Robbins TW, Clark L, Aron AR, Dowson J, Sahakian BJ (2003) Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology 165:260–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagner JC (1991) Enhancement of athletic performance with drugs. An overview. Sports Med 12:250–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walsh JK, Randazzo AC, Stone KL, Schweitzer PK (2004) Modafinil improves alertness, vigilance, and executive function during simulated night shifts. Sleep 27:434–439PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • William W. Stoops
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joshua A. Lile
    • 2
  • Mark T. Fillmore
    • 1
  • Paul E. A. Glaser
    • 3
    • 4
  • Craig R. Rush
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Behavioral ScienceUniversity of Kentucky Medical CenterLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Kentucky Medical CenterLexingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Anatomy and NeurobiologyUniversity of Kentucky Medical CenterLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations