Reference-dose place conditioning with ethanol in mice: empirical and theoretical analysis
- First Online:
- 642 Downloads
A frequently expressed criticism of the conditioned place preference (CPP) procedure is that it sometimes lacks a graded dose–response curve for many drugs.
We used a combination of standard and reference-dose CPP procedures to examine the dose–response curve for ethanol-induced CPP in DBA/2J mice.
Materials and methods
In the standard procedure, ethanol (0.5, 1.5, 2, and 4 g/kg) was paired with a distinctive floor cue, whereas saline was paired with a different floor cue. In the reference-dose procedure, each cue was paired with a different dose of ethanol. All mice received four 5-min trials of each type in both procedures.
Standard procedures yielded similar levels of CPP at doses of 1.5, 2, and 4 g/kg, whereas 0.5 g/kg did not produce significant CPP. However, in the reference-dose procedure, exposure to the 0.5-g/kg dose interfered with CPP normally produced by 1.5 or 2 g/kg. Moreover, mice showed significant preference for the 4-g/kg-paired cue over the 1.5-g/kg-paired cue.
These studies show that a reference-dose procedure can reveal effects of low doses that are sometimes difficult to detect in a standard procedure. The reference-dose procedure may also uncover differences between higher doses that normally produce similar preference. Efficacy of the reference-dose procedure may be explained by a theoretical analysis that assumes the procedure places behavior between the extremes of the performance range, offering a more sensitive method for detecting effects of manipulations that produce small changes and/or differences in the rewarding effects of ethanol.
KeywordsConditioned place preference Reference-dose procedure Reward Ethanol Locomotor activity Inbred mice (DBA/2J)
- Bevins RA (2005) The reference-dose place conditioning procedure yields a graded dose–effect function. Int J Comp Psychol 18:101–11Google Scholar
- Carr GD, Fibiger HC, Phillips AG (1989) Conditioned place preference as a measure of drug reward. In: Liebman JM, Cooper SJ (eds) Neuropharmacological basis of reward. Oxford, New York, pp 264–319Google Scholar
- Cunningham CL, Okorn D, Howard C (1997) Interstimulus interval determines whether ethanol produces conditioned place preference or aversion in mice. Anim Learn Behav 25:31–42Google Scholar
- Cunningham CL, Prather L (1992) Conditioning trial duration affects ethanol-induced conditioned place preference in mice. Anim Learn Behav 20:187–194Google Scholar
- Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds) Classical conditioning II: current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 64–99Google Scholar
- Swerdlow NR, Gilbert D, Koob GF (1989) Conditioned drug effects on spatial preference: critical evaluation. In: Boulton AA, Baker GB, Greenshaw AJ (eds) Psychopharmacology (Neuromethods vol. 13). Humana, Clifton, NJ, pp 399–446Google Scholar
- Wise RA (1987) Intravenous drug self-administration: A special case of positive reinforcement. In: Bozarth MA (ed) Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs. Springer, New York, pp 117–141Google Scholar
- Yokel RA (1987) Intravenous self-administration: response rates, the effects of pharmacological challenges, and drug preference. In: Bozarth MA (ed) Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs. Springer, New York, pp 1–33Google Scholar