Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 299–306 | Cite as

Performance differences between addicts and non-addicts

  • S. Rothenberg
  • S. Schottenfeld
  • R. E. Meyer
  • B. Krauss
  • K. Gross
Human Pharmacology

Abstract

Methadone addicts and non-addict controls were tested before and after receiving up to 10 mg of methadone on simple visual reaction time tests and on a vigilance type visual attention test. Addicts were faster than controls on pre-drug testing, although there were no pre-drug differences between groups on the attention task. Addicts maintained faster reaction times than controls even when money was offered as an incentive for speed. Additional methadone did not affect addict performance on any of the tasks. Methadone slowed control reaction times in a doserelated fashion. No significant attention decrements were seen after methadone in controls. Visual reaction time differences between addicts and controls cannot be attributed to group differences in motivation or ability to attend. Slowing of reaction time with acute dose of methadone in controls cannot be attributed to the effect of the drug on attention. An hypothesized drug-induced decrease in visual sensitivity with acute dose in controls and a drug-induced increase in visual sensitivity with chronic dose in addicts can account for the presented data.

Key words

Methadone addicts Reaction time Attention Visual sensitivity Acute methadone Chronic methadone 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armor, D. J., Couch, A. S.: Data-Text primer: An introduction to computerized social data analysis. New York: Free Press 1972Google Scholar
  2. Dole, V. P., Nyswander, M. E.: Medical treatment for diacetylmorphine (heroin) addiction. A clinical trial with methadone hydrochloride. J. Amer. Med. Ass. 193, 646–650 (1965)Google Scholar
  3. Duffy, E.: Activation and behavior. New York-London: Wiley 1962Google Scholar
  4. Evans, W. O., Jewett, A.: The effect of some centrally acting drugs on disjunctive reaction time. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 3, 124–127 (1962)Google Scholar
  5. Foldes, F., Swerdlow, M., Siker, E.: Narcotics and narcotic antagonists. Springfield, Ill.: Ch. C. Thomas 1964Google Scholar
  6. Frankenhaeuser, M., Post, B.: Objective and subjective performance as influenced by drug-induced variations in activation level. Univ. Stockholm Psychol. Lab. Rep 184, 1–18 (1965)Google Scholar
  7. Goodman, L., Gilman, A.: The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 4th ed. New York: MacMillan 1970Google Scholar
  8. Gordon, N. B.: Reaction times of methadone treated ex-heroin addicts. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 16, 337–344 (1970)Google Scholar
  9. Lorens, S., Mitchell, C.: Influence of morphine on lateral hypothalamic self-stimulation in the rat. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 32, 271–277 (1973)Google Scholar
  10. Mackworth, J.: The effect of amphetamine on the detectability of signals in a vigilance task. Canad. J. Psychol. 19, 104–110 (1965)Google Scholar
  11. Mirsky, A., Kornetsky C.: On the dissimilar effects of drugs on the digit symbol substitution and continuous performance tests. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 5, 161–177 (1964)Google Scholar
  12. Neal, G. L., Pearson, R. G.: Comparative effects of age, sex and drugs upon two tasks of auditory vigilance. Percept. Motor Skills 23, 967–975 (1966)Google Scholar
  13. Pribram, K. H., McGuinness, D.: Arousal, activation, and efforts in the control of attention Psychol. Rev. 82, 116–149 (1975)Google Scholar
  14. Rosvold, H., Mirsky, A., Sarason, I., Bransome, E., Jr., Beck, L.: A continuous performance test of brain damage. J. cons. Psychol. 20, 343–350 (1956)Google Scholar
  15. Schottenfeld, S., Rothenberg, S.: An automated laboratory control system: Collection and analysis of behavioral and electrophysiological data. Computer Progr Biomed. 5, 296–306 (1976)Google Scholar
  16. Valdman, A. V., Arushanyan, E. B.: The influence of analgetic drugs on segmental and suprasegmental inhibition. In: Pharmacology and physiology of the reticular formation, Progress in brain research. Vol. 20, A. V. Valdman, ed., pp. 223–242. Amsterdam: Elsevier 1967Google Scholar
  17. Volavka, J., Zaks, A., Roubicek, J., Fink, M.: Electrographic effects of diacetylmorphine (heroin) and naloxone in man. Neuropharmacology 9, 587–593 (1970)Google Scholar
  18. Wikler, A.: Dynamics of drug dependence: Implications of a conditioning theory for research and treatment. In: Opiate addictions: origins and treatment, S. Fisher and A. M. Freedman, eds., pp. 7–21. Washington, D. C.: Winston 1973Google Scholar
  19. Woodworth, R., Schlossberg, H.: Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1954Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Rothenberg
    • 1
  • S. Schottenfeld
    • 1
  • R. E. Meyer
    • 1
  • B. Krauss
    • 1
  • K. Gross
    • 1
  1. 1.Harvard-Boston University Center for Biobehavioral Studies in the Addictions, Harvard Medical School, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research CenterMcLean HospitalBelmont

Personalised recommendations