Psychopharmacologia

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 103–114 | Cite as

The potentiation of conditioned reinforcement by psychomotor stimulant drugs. A Test of Hill's Hypothesis

  • T. W. Robbins
Animal Studies

Abstract

A test of Hill's hypothesis that psychomotor stimulant drugs potentiate the effects of conditioned reinforcement (CR) was made, using a choice paradigm in extinction, with several doses of pipradrol.

In Experiment 1 it was found that a dose of 10 mg/kg pipradrol increased responding on a lever providing CR, but depressed responding on a lever providing no CR (NCR).

Experiments 2 and 3 tested whether the drug enhanced reinforcing rather than unconditioned properties of the CR stimulus. Evidence was in favour of the former, but certain results supported the existence of other factors which might contribute to the potentiation effect.

Finally, in Experiment 4, the factors contributing to the failure of some animals to show stimulation of operant behaviour following pipradrol, were examined.

Key words

Stimulant drugs Pipradrol Conditioned reinforcement Facilitation Rats 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berlyne, D. E.: Arousal, reward and learning. In: Experimental approaches to the study of emotional behaviour, E. Tobach, ed., pp. 1057–1063. New York: N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1969Google Scholar
  2. Broekkamp, C. L. E., Pijnenburg, A. J. J., Van Rossum, J. M.: Dopaminergic transmission in relation to mechanisms underlying stereotyped behaviour. In: Frontiers in catecholamine research, E. Usdin and S.H. Snyder, eds., pp. 675–676. Oxford: Pergamon 1973Google Scholar
  3. Bugelski, R.: Extinction with and without sub-goal reinforcement. J. comp. Psychol. 26, 121–133 (1938)Google Scholar
  4. Doty, B., Doty, L.: Facilitation effects of amphetamine on avoidance conditioning in relation to age and problem difficulty. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 9, 234–241 (1966)Google Scholar
  5. Faidherbe, J., Richelle, M., Schlag, J.: Nonconsumption of the reinforcer under drug action. J. exp. Anal. Behav. 5, 521–524 (1962)Google Scholar
  6. Geller, I., Seifter, J.: The effects of meprobamate, barbiturates, d-amphetamine and promazine on experimentally-induced conflict in the rat. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 21, 482–492 (1960)Google Scholar
  7. Glick, S. D.: Facilitation or impairment of learning by d-amphetamine as a function of stimuli. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 21, 353–360 (1971)Google Scholar
  8. Glick, S. D.: Enhancement of spatial preference by (+)-amphetamine. Neuropharmacology 12, 43–47 (1973)Google Scholar
  9. Gray, J. A.: The effects of pipradrol hydrochloride and sodium amylbarbitone on operant responding in a discriminant situation. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 6, 417–434 (1964)Google Scholar
  10. Hill, R. T.: A behavioural analysis of the psychomotor stimulant effect of a drug: the interaction of pipradrol with conditioned reinforcers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, U.S.A. (1967)Google Scholar
  11. Hill, R. T.: Facilitation of conditioned reinforcement as a mechanism of psychomotor stimulation. In: Amphetamines and related compounds, E. Costa and S. Garattini, eds., pp. 781–795. New York: Raven Press 1970Google Scholar
  12. Hill, R. T.: Animal models of the euphorigenic action of amphetamine-like psychomotor stimulant drugs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (Div. 28), Honolulu, Hawaii (1972)Google Scholar
  13. Kelleher, R. T., Morse, W. H.: Determinants of the specificity of behavioural effects of drugs. Ergebn. Physiol. 60, 1–56 (1968)Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Lyon, M., Robbins, T. W.: The action of central nervous system stimulant drugs: a general theory concerning amphetamine effects. In: Current developments in psychopharmacology, Vol. 2, pp. 79–163. New York: Spectrum 1975Google Scholar
  16. Mackintosh, N. J.: The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press 1974Google Scholar
  17. Morgan, M. J.: Effects of random reinforcement sequences. J. exp. Anal. Behav. 22, 301–310 (1974)Google Scholar
  18. Randrup, A., Munkvad, I.: Biochemical, anatomical and psychological investigations of stereotyped behaviour induced by amphetamine. In: Amphetamine and related compounds, E. Costa and S. Garattini, eds., pp. 695–713. New York: Raven Press 1970Google Scholar
  19. Sadowski, N., Longo, V. G.: Electroencephalographic and behaviour correlates of an instrumental reward conditioned response in rabbits. A physiological and pharmacological study. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol. 14, 465–476 (1962)Google Scholar
  20. Schoenfeld, W. N., Antonitis, J. J., Bersh, P. J.: A preliminary study of training conditions necessary for secondary reinforcement. J. exp. Psychol. 40, 40–45 (1950)Google Scholar
  21. Siegel, S.: Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill 1956Google Scholar
  22. Skinner, B. F., Heron, W. T.: Effects of caffeine and benzedrine upon conditioning and extinction. Psychol. Rec. 1, 340–346 (1937)Google Scholar
  23. Stein, L.: Amphetamine and neural reward mechanisms. In: Animal behaviour and drug action, H. Steinberg, A. V. S. de Reuck, and J. Knight, eds., pp. 91–118. London: Churchill 1964Google Scholar
  24. Stretch, R., Gerber, G. J.: Drug-induced reinstatement of amphetamine self-administration behaviour in monkeys. Canad. J. Psychol. 27, 168–177 (1973)Google Scholar
  25. Teitelbaum, P., Derks, P.: The effect of amphetamine on forced drinking in the rat. J. comp. physiol. Psychol. 51, 801–810 (1958)Google Scholar
  26. Wike, E. L.: Secondary reinforcement. New York: Harper and Row 1966Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. W. Robbins
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyCambridge UniversityEngland

Personalised recommendations