, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 25–30 | Cite as

Psychostimulant self-administration by beagle dogs in a progressive-ratio paradigm

  • Marc E. Risner
  • Dennis L. Silcox
Original Investigations


The relative reinforcing efficacy of cocaine, amphetamine, mazindol, and fenfluramine was quantified using a progressive-ratio paradigm. Catheterized beagle dogs (N=6) were given access to response-contingent drug infusions during three 1-h trials each day. According to a predetermined schedule, the response requirement to obtain one infusion each trial was increased daily until the dogs failed to complete the necessary fixed-ratio (FR); i. e., until they reached a “break-point” in their ratio behavior. Fenfluramine (in doses ranging from 0.0625–4.0 mg/kg/infusion) did not maintain self-administration behavior at or above the minimum requirement (FR 30). In contrast, all doses of cocaine (0.2–1.6 mg/kg/infusion), d-amphetamine (0.035–0.28 mg/kg/infusion), and mazindol (0.0225–0.18 mg/kg/infusion) sustained responding at large FR values. The highest FR values were maintained by cocaine, followed by d-amphetamine, then mazindol. Generally the dogs completed higher FRs for higher doses of a drug.

Key words

Self-administration Reinforcing efficacy Progressive-ratio Dog Cocaine Amphetamine Mazindol Fenfluramine 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balster RL, Schuster CR (1973) Fixed-interval schedule of cocaine reinforcement: effect of dose and infusion duration. J Exp Anal Behav 20:119–129Google Scholar
  2. Balster RL, Schuster CR (1977) A preference procedure that compares efficacy of different intravenous drug reinforcers in the rhesus monkey. In: Ellinwood EH, Kilbey MM (eds) Cocaine and other stimulants, Plenum, New York, pp 571–584Google Scholar
  3. Bedford JA, Bailey LP, Wilson MC (1978) Cocaine reinforced progressive-ratio performance in the rhesus monkey. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 9:631–638Google Scholar
  4. Dantzer R (1976) Effect of diazepam on performance of pigs in a progressive-ratio schedule. Physiol Behav 17:161–163Google Scholar
  5. Fischman MW, Schuster CR, Resnekov L, Shick J, Krasnegor N, Fennell W, Freedman D (1976) Cardiovascular and subjective effects of intravenous cocaine administration in humans. Arch Gen Psychiatry 33:983–989Google Scholar
  6. Gogerty JH, Penberthy C, Iario LC, Trapold JH (1975) Pharmacological analysis of a new anorexic substance; 5-hydroxy-5-(4′-chlorophenyl)-2,3-dihydro-5H-imidazo-(2,1-a) isoindole (mazindol). Arch Int Pharmacodyn 214:285–307Google Scholar
  7. Gotesman KG, Gunne Lars-M (1972) Subjective effects of two anorexigenic agents, fenfluramine and AN 448 in amphetamine-dependent subjects. Br J Addict 67:39–44Google Scholar
  8. Griffith JD, Nutt JG, Jasinski DR (1975) A comparison of fenfluramine and amphetamine in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 18:563–570Google Scholar
  9. Griffiths RR, Brady JV, Bradford LD (1979) Predicting the abuse liability of drugs with animal drug self-administration procedures, psychomotor stimulants and hallucinogens. In: Thompson T, Dews PB (eds) Advances in behavioral pharmacology, Vol 2, Academic Press, New York, pp. 163–208Google Scholar
  10. Griffiths RR, Brady JV, Snell JD (1978) Progressive-ratio performance maintained by drug infusions: comparison of cocaine, diethylproprion, chlorphentermine, and fenfluramine. Psychopharmacology 56:5–13Google Scholar
  11. Griffiths RR, Findley JD, Brady JV, Dolan-Gutcher K, Robinson W (1975) Comparison of progressive-ratio performance maintained by cocaine, methylphenidate, and secobarbital. Psychopharmacologia 43:81–83Google Scholar
  12. Hodos W (1961) Progressive-ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science 134:943–944Google Scholar
  13. Hodos W (1965) Motivational properties of long duration of rewarding brain stimulation. J Comp Physiol Psychol 59:219–224Google Scholar
  14. Hoffmeister F (1979) Progressive-ratio performance in the rhesus monkey maintained by opiate infusions. Psychopharmacology 62:181–186Google Scholar
  15. Iglauer C, Llewellyn ME, Woods JH (1975) Concurrent schedules of cocaine injection in rhesus monkeys: dose variations under independent and non-independent variable-interval procedures. Pharmacol Rev 27:367–383Google Scholar
  16. Jasinski DR, Nutt JG, Griffith JD (1974) Effects of diethylproprion and d-amphetamine after subcutaneous and oral administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther 16:645–652Google Scholar
  17. Johanson CE, Schuster CR (1975) A choice procedure for drug reinforcers: cocaine and methylphenidate in the rhesus monkey. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 193:676–688Google Scholar
  18. Jones BE, Prada JA (1973) Relapse to morphine use in the dog. Psychopharmacologia 30:1–12Google Scholar
  19. Keesey RE, Goldstein MD (1968) Use of progressive fixed-ratio procedures in the assessment of intracranial reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 11:239–301Google Scholar
  20. Kelleher RT, Goldberg SR (1977) Fixed-interval responding under second-order schedules of food-presentation or cocaine injection. J Exp Anal Behav 28:221–231Google Scholar
  21. LeDouarec JC, Neveu C (1970) Pharmacology and biochemistry of fenfluramine. In: Costa E, Garattini S (eds) Amphetamines and related compounds, pp 75–105Google Scholar
  22. Resnick RB, Kestenbaum RS, Schwartz LK (1976) Acute systemic effects of cocaine in man: a controlled study by intranasal and intravenous routes. Science 195:696–697Google Scholar
  23. Risner ME, Jones BE (1975) Self-administration of CNS stimulants by dog. Psychopharmacologia 43:207–213Google Scholar
  24. Risner ME, Jones BE (1979) The effects of psychomotor stimulants on single-spatial alternation behavior in dogs. Psychopharmacology 63:137–141Google Scholar
  25. Risner ME, Jones BE (1980) Intravenous self-administration of cocaine and norcocaine by dogs. Psychopharmacology 71:83–89Google Scholar
  26. Siegel RK (1977) Cocaine: recreational use and intoxication. In: Petersen RC, Stillman RC (eds) Cocaine: 1977 NIDA Research Monograph Series No. 13, pp 119–136Google Scholar
  27. Thompson DM (1972) Enhancement of progressive-ratio performance by chlordiazepoxide and phenobarbital. J Exp Anal Behav 17:272–287Google Scholar
  28. Vaupel DB, Nozaki M, Martin WR, Bright LD (1978) Single dose and cross tolerance studies of β-phenethylamine, d-amphetamine and LSD in the chronic spinal dog. Eur J Pharmacol 48:431–437Google Scholar
  29. Wilson MC, Schuster CR (1976) Mazindol self-administration in the rhesus monkey. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 4:207–210Google Scholar
  30. Woods JH (1977) Behavioral effects of cocaine in animals. In: Cocaine 1977, NIDA Research Monograph Series No. 13, pp 63–95Google Scholar
  31. Woods JH, Tessel RE (1974) Fenfluramine: amphetamine congener that fails to maintain drug-taking behavior in the rhesus monkey. Science 185:1067–1069Google Scholar
  32. World Health Organization, Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, 21st Report, Technical Report Series No. 618, WHO, Geneva Switzerland, 1978Google Scholar
  33. Yanagita T (1973) An experimental framework for evaluation of dependence liability of various types of drugs in monkeys. Bull Narc 25:57–64Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc E. Risner
    • 1
  • Dennis L. Silcox
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute on Drug Abuse, Division of ResearchAddiction Research CenterLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations