Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 72, Issue 3, pp 251–256 | Cite as

Habituation of the head-poke response: Effects of an amphetamine-barbiturate mixture, PLG and fenfluramine

  • Wouter Koek
  • Jef L. Slangen
Original Investigations

Abstract

A test situation was developed in which the effects of drugs on habituation of exploratory behavior (head-poke responses) could be assessed independently of their effects on general activity (locomotion and rearing). Habituation, spontaneous recovery from habituation and stimulus specificity of habituation were studied.

An amphetamine-barbiturate mixture attenuated habituation of the head-poke response without influencing general activity. Pro-Leu-Gly-NH2 (PLG), an oxytocin fragment, increased locomotor activity and did not alter the course of habituation of the head-poke response. Since exploratory behavior and general activity can be pharmacologically dissociated in the test situation used, it is concluded that the test situation is suitable for studying the effects of drugs on habituation of exploratory behavior. The amphetamine-barbiturate mixture did not influence the stimulus specificity of habituation of the head-poke response. Fenfluramine however increased the effects of stimulus change on the head-poke response while not influencing habituation of this response. These results show that habituation and stimulus specificity of habituation of exploratory behavior can be pharmacologically dissociated.

Key words

dl-Amphetamine Amylobarbitone Drug mixture PLG Fenfluramine Habituation Exploratory response General activity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Clineschmidt BV, Totaro JA, McGuffin JC, Pflueger AB (1976) Fenfluramine: long-term reduction in brain serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine). Eur J Pharmacol 35:211–214Google Scholar
  2. Cooper SJ (1976) Exploratory response habituation and the attenuating effect of an amphetamine-barbiturate mixture. Psychopharmacology 49:91–96Google Scholar
  3. Feigley DA, Hamilton LW (1971) Response to novel environment following septal lesions or cholinergic blockade in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 76:496–504Google Scholar
  4. Feigley DA, Parsons PJ Hamilton LW, Spear NE (1972) Development of habituation to novel environments in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol 79:443–452Google Scholar
  5. File SE (1975) Effects of parachlorophenylalanine and amphetamine on habituation of orienting. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 3:979–983Google Scholar
  6. van Ree JM, Bohus B, Versteeg DHG, De Wied D (1978) Neurohypophyseal principles and memory processes. Biochem Pharmacol 27:1793–1800Google Scholar
  7. Robbins TW (1977) A critique of the methods available for the measurement of spontaneous motor activity. In: Iversen LL, Iversen SD, Snyder SH (eds) Handbook of psychopharmacology, Vol 7. Plenum Press, New York, pp 37–77Google Scholar
  8. Rushton R, Steinberg H (1963) Mutual potentiation of amphetamine and amylobarbitone measured by activity in rats. Br J Pharmacol 21:295–305Google Scholar
  9. Williams JM, Hamilton LW, Carlton PL (1974) Pharmacological and anatomical dissociation of two types of habituation. J Comp Physiol Psychol 87:724–732Google Scholar
  10. Williams JM, Hamilton LW, Carlton PL (1975) Ontogenetic dissociation of two classes of habituation. J Comp Physiol Psychol 89:733–737Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wouter Koek
    • 1
  • Jef L. Slangen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations