, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 1–7 | Cite as

Concurrent etonitazene and water intake in rats: Role of taste, olfaction, and auditory stimuli

  • Marilyn E. Caroll
  • Richard A. Meisch
Original Investigations


Etonitazene and water were concurrently available to four rats during daily 1 h sessions in operant conditioning chambers equipped with two levers and two liquid dippers. A food-induced training procedure was used whereby etonitazene drinking was rapidly established by presenting rats with gradually increased drug concentrations with their daily food ration. When food was subsequently removed from the session and given post-session, etonitazene responding persisted. The rats were subsequently trained on fixed-ratio (FR) schedules with concurrent access to etonitazene and water. The number of dipper presentations compared with etonitazene concentrations (0.078–10.0 μg/ml) resulted in a typical inverted U-shaped function while etonitazene intake (μg/kg) increased directly with concentration. After drinking large quantities of etonitazene the rats showed ataxia, hyper-activity, and stereotypy. Extinction tests demonstrated that rats could discriminate between etonitazene and water on the basis of one dipper full of each liquid; the amount of etonitazene in one dipper was 0.0078 μg. Further tests showed that this discrimination was based on taste or immediate post-ingestional feedback rather than olfactory cues. An auditory stimulus was presented concurrently with responses on the drug lever; however, there was no difference in responding for the drug in the presence or absence of this stimulus except at the lowest concentration. After the extinction tests, when the lowest drug concentration was again available with concurrent water, responding was substantially higher in the presence of stimulus associated with availability of etonitazene. The results extend previous work on oral narcotic intake to a lever-press concurrent choice procedure which is sensitive to reinforcing effects of the drug at low concentrations.

Key words

Etonitazene Etonitazene reinforcement Concurrent schedules Choice procedures Rats Taste Olfaction Auditory stimuli Discriminative stimuli Conditioned reinforcers Fixed-ratio schedules 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aigner, T. G., Balster, R. L.: Choice behavior in rhesus monkeys: Cocaine versus food. Science 201, 534–535 (1978)Google Scholar
  2. Carroll, M. E., Meisch, R. A.: Etonitazene as a reinforcer: Oral intake of etonitazene by rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology 59, 225–229 (1978)Google Scholar
  3. Chernov, H. I., Abrose, F. G., Plummer, A. J.: Pattern of consumption of etonitazene solutions by naive rats. Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Ther. 175, 309–318 (1968)Google Scholar
  4. Chernov, H. I., Barbaz, B. S., Boshek, R. L., Feist, M. M.: Age and lack and handling as factors in the consumption of an etonitazene solution by naive rats. Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Ther. 195, 231–239 (1972)Google Scholar
  5. Claghorn, J. L., Ordy, J. M., Nagy, A.: Spontaneous opiate addiction in rhesus monkeys. Science 149, 440–441 (1965)Google Scholar
  6. Garcia, J., Koelling, R. A.: Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychon. Sci. 4, 123–124 (1966)Google Scholar
  7. Garcia, J., McGowan, B. K., Ervin, F. R., Koelling, R. A.: Cues: Their relative effectiveness as a function of the reinforcer. Science 100, 794–795 (1968)Google Scholar
  8. Goldberg, S. R.: Stimuli associated with drug injections as events that control behavior. Pharmacol. Rev. 27, 325–342 (1975)Google Scholar
  9. Iglauer, C., Woods, J. H.: Concurrent performances: Reinforcement by different doses of cocaine in rhesus monkeys. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 22, 179–196 (1974)Google Scholar
  10. Johanson, C. E.: Effects of electric shock on responding maintained by cocaine injections in a choice procedure in the rhesus monkey. Psychopharmacology 53, 277–282 (1977)Google Scholar
  11. Johanson, C. E.: Pharmacological and environmental variables affecting drug preference in rhesus monkeys. Pharmacol. Rev. 27, 343–355 (1975)Google Scholar
  12. Johanson, C. E., Schuster, C. R.: A choice procedure for drug reinforcers: Cocaine and methylphenidate in the rhesus monkey. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 193, 676–688 (1975)Google Scholar
  13. Johanson, C. E., Schuster, C. R.: A comparison of cocaine and diethylproprion under two different schedules of drug presentation. In: Cocaine and other stimulants, E. H. Ellinwood, M. M. Kilbey, eds., pp. 545–570. New York: Plenum 1976Google Scholar
  14. Khavari, K. A., Risner, M. E.: Establishment of morphine preference in the rat. Psychon. Sci. 26, 141–142 (1972)Google Scholar
  15. Kumar, R., Steinberg, H., Stolerman, I. P.: Inducing a preference for morphine in rats without premedication. Nature 218, 564–565 (1968)Google Scholar
  16. Leander, J. D., McMillan, D. E.: Schedule-induced narcotic ingestion. Pharmacol. Rev. 27, 475–487 (1975)Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, M. J., Margules, D. L., Ward, L. B., Jr.: Opioid-reinforced operant behavior: Selective suppression by alpha-methyl-paratyrosine. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 88, 519–527 (1975)Google Scholar
  18. McMillan, D. E., Leander J. K.: Schedule-induced oral self-administration of etonitazene. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 4, 137–141 (1976)Google Scholar
  19. Meisch, R. A.: Ethanol self-administration: Infrahuman studies. In: Advances in behavioral pharmacology, T. Thompson, P. B. Dews, eds., pp. 35–84. New York: Academic Press 1977Google Scholar
  20. Meisch, R. A., Beardsley, P.: Ethanol as a reinforcer for rats: Effects of concurrent access to water and alternate positions of water and ethanol. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 43, 12–23 (1975)Google Scholar
  21. Meisch, R. A., Stark, L. J.: Establishment of etonitazene as a reinforcer for rats by use of schedule-induced drinking. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 7, 195–203 (1977)Google Scholar
  22. Meisch, R. A., Thompson, T.: Ethanol as a reinforcer: Effects of fixed-ratio size and food deprivation. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 26, 171–183 (1973)Google Scholar
  23. Meisch, R. A., Thompson, T.: Ethanol intake as a function of concentration during food deprivation and satiation. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2, 589–596 (1974)Google Scholar
  24. Myers, R. D., Veale, W. L.: The determinants of alcohol preference in animals. In: The biology of alcoholism, vol. II, B. Kissin, H. Begleiter, eds., pp. 131–168. New York: Plenum 1972Google Scholar
  25. Nichols, J. R., Davis, W. M.: Drug addiction II variation of addition. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 48, 259–262 (1959)Google Scholar
  26. Parker, L. F., Radow, B. L.: Morphine-like physical dependence: A pharmacologic method for drug assessement using the rat. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2, 613–618 (1974)Google Scholar
  27. Pickens, R., Meisch, R. A., Thompson, T.: Drug self-administration: An analysis of the reinforcing effects of drugs. In: Handbook of psychopharmacology, vol. 12, L. L. Iversen, S. E. Iversen, S. H. Snyder, eds., pp. 1–37. New York: Plenum 1978Google Scholar
  28. Schuster, C. R., Woods, J. H.: The conditioned reinforcing effects of stimuli associated with morphine reinforcement. Int. J. Addict. 3, 223–230 (1968)Google Scholar
  29. Wikler, A., Pescor, F. T.: Classical conditioning of a morphine abstinence phenomenon, reinforcement of opioid drinking behavior and “relapse” in morphine-addicted rats. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 10, 255–284 (1967)Google Scholar
  30. Wikler, A., Pescor, F. T.: Persistence of “relapse-tendencies” of rats previously made physically dependent on morphine. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 16, 375–384 (1970)Google Scholar
  31. Wikler, A., Martin, W. R., Pescor, F. T., Eades, C. G.: Factors regulating oral consumption of an opioid (etonitazene) by morphine-addicted rats. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 5, 55–76 (1963)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marilyn E. Caroll
    • 1
  • Richard A. Meisch
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychiatry Research UnitUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations