, Volume 80, Issue 2, pp 125–128 | Cite as

Effects of d-amphetamine and morphine on discrimination: signal detection analysis and assessment of response repetition in the performance deficits

  • W. Koek
  • J. L. Slangen
Original Investigations


Signal detection analysis was used to examine the effects of d-amphetamine and of morphine on auditory discrimination in female rats. The probability of response repetition in the discrete trial two-choice discrimination procedure was used as an additional behavioral measure. d-Amphetamine (0.4–3.2 mg/kg) and morphine (1.88–15.0 mg/kg) decreased the sensitivity measures (A′ and SI) but did not consistently affect the response bias measures (B″ and RI). The probability of response repetition was increased by d-amphetamine and was not affected by morphine. It is concluded that the response bias measure B″, derived from signal detection theory, and the empirical response bias measure RI, do not discriminate between the different ways in which d-amphetamine and morphine affect discriminative responding, under the conditions of this study.

Key words

Auditory Discrimination Signal detection Response Repetition d-Amphetamine Morphine Rats 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altman JL, Appel JB, Mc Gowan WT (1979) Drugs and the discrimination of duration. Psychopharmacology 60:183–188Google Scholar
  2. Appel JB, Dykstra LA (1977) Drugs, discrimination and signal detection theory. In: Thompson T, Dews PB (eds) Advances in behavioral pharmacology, vol 1. Academic, New York, pp 139–166Google Scholar
  3. Blough DS (1969) Generalization gradient shape and summation in steady-state tests. J Exp Anal Behav 12:91–104Google Scholar
  4. Dykstra LA, Appel JB (1974) Effects of LSD on auditory perception: A signal detection analysis. Psychopharmacologia 34:289–307Google Scholar
  5. Frey PW, Colliver JA (1973) Sensitivity and reposivity measures for discrimination learning. Learning and Motivation 4:327–342Google Scholar
  6. Grier JB (1971) Nonparametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Computing formulas. Psychol Bull 75:424–429Google Scholar
  7. Grilly DM (1981) A signal detection analysis of morphine effects on the response bias of rats in a two-shock discrimination task. Life Sci 28:1883–1888Google Scholar
  8. Hernandez LL, Appel JB (1979) An analysis of some perceptual effects of morphine, chlorpromazine and LSD. Psychopharmacology 60: 125–130Google Scholar
  9. Hernandez LL, Appel JB (1980) Effects of pentazocine and other opiates on shock detection in the rat: involvement of opiate and dopamine receptors. Psychopharmacology 67:155–163Google Scholar
  10. Nielsen EB (1981) Effects of d-amphetamine and LSD on simultaneous discrimination. In: Bradshaw CM, Szabadi E, Lowe CF (eds) Quantification of steady-state operant behavior. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 461–464Google Scholar
  11. Rapp DL, Robbins TW (1976) The effects of d-amphetamine on temporal discrimination in the rat. Psychopharmacology 51:91–100Google Scholar
  12. Robbins TW, Watson BA (1981) Effects of d-amphetamine on response repetition and win-stay behavior in rat. In: Bradshaw CM, Szabadi E, Lowe CF (eds) Quantification of steady-state operant behavior. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 441–444Google Scholar
  13. Stubbs DA, Thomas JR (1974) Discrimination of stimulus duration and d-amphetamine in pigeons: A psychophysical analysis. Psychopharmacologia 36:313–322Google Scholar
  14. Thompson DM (1978) Stimulus control and drug effects. In: Blackman DE, Sanger DJ (eds) Contemporary research in behavioral pharmacology. Plenum, New York, pp 159–207Google Scholar
  15. Vitaliano PP, Prinz P, Vitiello MV, Olshan A, Roehrs TA (1981) On the use of repeated measures designs in pharmacology. Psychopharmacology 72:247–249Google Scholar
  16. Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Koek
    • 1
  • J. L. Slangen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations