Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 163–166 | Cite as

Restrained rats learn amphetamine-conditioned locomotion, but not place preference

  • N. R. Swerdlow
  • G. F. Koob
Original Investigations

Abstract

The relationship between the motor-activating and positive-reinforcing properties of d-amphetamine was examined in the place-preference paradigm. Two groups of animals were trained to associate one environment with amphetamine, and another environment with saline. Annimals that were allowed to locomote in both environments during training later demonstrated a preference for the amphetamine-paired environment; animals in which hyperactivity was limited in both environments later failed to show any preference. However, both groups of animals demonstrated a conditioned locomotor activation to the amphetamine-associated environments. Our results suggest that a place-preference demonstrated for an amphetamine-paired environment depends on the ability of the drug to increase locomotor behavior.

Key words

Place-preference Amphetamine Locomotor behavior Conditioned locomotion Hyperactivity Rat 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aulisi EF, Hoebel BG (1983) Rewarding effects of amphetamine and cocaine in the nucleus accumbens and block by flupenthixol. Soc Neurosci (Abstr) 9:121Google Scholar
  2. Bozarth MA, Wise RA (1981) Heroin reward is dependent on a dopaminergic substrate. Life Sci 29:1881–1886Google Scholar
  3. Carr GD, White NM (1983) Conditioned place preference from intra-accumbens but not intra-caudate amphetamine injections. Life Sci 33:2551–2557Google Scholar
  4. Ettenberg A, van der Kooy D, Le Moal M, Koob GF, Bloom FE (1983) Can aversive properties of (peripherally-injected) vasopressin account for its putative role in memory? Behav Brain Res 7:331–350Google Scholar
  5. Gilbert D, Cooper SJ (1983) P-Phenylethylamine, d-amphetamine- and l-amphetamine-induced place preference conditioning in rats. Eur J Pharmacol 95:311–314Google Scholar
  6. Giovino AA, Glimcher PW, Mattel CA, Hoebel BG (1983) Phenycyclidine (PCP) generates conditioned reinforcement in the nucleus accumbens (ACC) but not in the ventral tegmental area (VTA). Soc Neurosci (Abstr) 9:120Google Scholar
  7. Glimcher PW, Margol DH, Giovino AA, Hoebel BG (1984) Neurotensin: a new ‘reward peptide’. Brain Res 291:119–124Google Scholar
  8. Joyce EM, Koob GF (1981) Amphetamine-, scopolamine- and caffeine-induced locomotor activity following 6-hydroxydopamine lesions of the mesolimbic dopamine systems. Psychopharmacology 73:311–313Google Scholar
  9. Kalivas PW, Nemeroff CB, Prange AJ (1981) Increase in spontaneous motor activity following infusion of neurotensin into the ventral tegmental area. Brain Res 229:525–529Google Scholar
  10. Kelley AE, Stinus L, Iversen SD (1980) Interaction between d-Ala-Met-enkephalin, A10 dopaminergic neurones, and spontaneous behaviour in the rat. Behav Brain Res 1:3–24Google Scholar
  11. van der Kooy D, Swerdlow NR, Koob GF (1983) Paradoxical reinforcing properties of apomorphine: effects of nucleus accumbens and area postrema lesions. Brain Res 259:111–118Google Scholar
  12. Kullback S (1968) Information theory and statistics. Dover: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Mucha RF, Volkovskis C, Kalant G (1981) Conditioned increases in locomotor activity produced with morphine as an unconditioned stimulus, and the relation of the conditioning to acute morphine effect and tolerance. J Comp Physiol Psychol 95:351–362Google Scholar
  14. Mucha RF, van der Kooy D, O'Shaughnessy M, Bucenieks P (1982) Drug reinforcement studied by the use of place conditioning in rat. Brain Res 243:91–105Google Scholar
  15. Pert A, Sivit C (1977) Neuroanatomical focus for morphine and enkephalin-induced hypermotility. Nature 265:645–647Google Scholar
  16. Phillips AG, Lepiane FG (1982) Reward produced by microinjection of (d-Ala2), Met5-enkephalinamide into the ventral tegmental area. Behav Brain Res 5:225–229Google Scholar
  17. Phillips AG, LePiane FG, Fibiger HC (1982) Dopaminergic mediation of reward produced by direct injection of enkephalin into the ventral tegmental area of the rat. Life Sci 33:2505–2511Google Scholar
  18. Robbins TW (1977) A critique of the methods available for the measurement of spontaneous motor activity. In: Iversen L, Iversen S, Snyder S (eds) Handbook of psychopharmacology, vol 7. Plenum, New York, pp 37–82Google Scholar
  19. Spyraki C, Fibiger HC, Phillips AG (1982a) Dopaminergic substrates of amphetamine-induced place preference conditioning. Brain Res 253:185–193Google Scholar
  20. Spyraki C, Fibiger HC, Phillips AG (1982b) Cocaine-induced place preference conditioning: lack of effects of neuroleptics and 6-hydroxydopamine lesions. Brain Res 253:195–203Google Scholar
  21. Swerdlow NR, Swanson LW, Koob GF (1983) Electrolytic lesions of the substantia innominata and lateral preoptic area abolish the ‘supersensitive’ locomotor response to apomorphine in rats resulting from denervation of the nucleus accumbens. Soc Neurosci (Abstr) 9:552Google Scholar
  22. Tilson HA, Rech RH (1973) Conditioned drug effects and absence of tolerance to d-amphetamine induced motor activity. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1:149–153Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. R. Swerdlow
    • 1
  • G. F. Koob
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Preclinical Neuroscience and EndocrinologyScripps Clinic and Research FoundationLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations