Psychopharmacology

, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 212–221 | Cite as

Evidence for perceptual masking of the discriminative morphine stimulus

  • David V. Gauvin
  • Alice M. Young
Original Investigations

Abstract

Morphine-amphetamine and morphine-naltrexone interactions were examined in three groups of White Carneaux pigeons (n=3), which were trained in a twochoice drug discrimination procedure under a FR-30 schedule of food reinforcement using 3.2 mg/kg morphine and saline as discriminative stimuli. Once stimulus control was acquired by these initial training stimuli, the training doses of morphine were gradually changed to 1.0 mg/kg for group A and to 10 mg/kg for group C. The three groups differed in the minimum dose required for stimulus control and the drugs to which the training stimulus generalized. Stimulus generalization to amphetamine was inversely related to training dose. Amphetamine potentiated the discriminative stimulus properties of morphine. Naltrexone blocked the discriminative stimulus properties of morphine to varying degrees, which appeared to be limited by the training dose and the rate-suppressing effects of naltrexone when administered alone. Challenging the morphine stimulus with amphetamine resulted in a qualitatively similar blockade. This blockade was a direct function of the morphine training dose. It is argued that MS-AMP interactions result in perceptual masking of the MS stimulus, which can be differentiated from pharmacological antagonism by NTX. Two other challenge drugs, ketamine, and sodium pentobarbital, did not alter stimulus control by morphine.

Key words

Drug discrimination Naltrexone Amphetamine Masking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Appel JB, Kuhn DM, White FJ (1978) Dual receptor mediation of the discriminative stimulus properties of pentazocine. In: Ho BT, Richards DW, Chute DL (eds) Drug discrimination and state-dependent learning. Academic Press, New York, pp 149–162Google Scholar
  2. Barry III H (1974) Classification of drugs according to their discriminable effects in rats. Fed Proc 33:1814–1824Google Scholar
  3. Browne RG (1981) Anxiolytics antagonize yohimbine's discriminative stimulus properties. Psychopharmacology 74:245–249Google Scholar
  4. Browne RG, Weisman A (1981) Discriminative stimulus properties of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol: mechanistic studies. J Clin Pharm 21:227S-234SGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne RG, Welch WM (1982) Stereoselective antagonism of phencyclidine's discriminative properties by adenosine receptor agonists. Science 217:1157–1159Google Scholar
  6. Colpaert FC (1986) Drug discrimination: behavioral, pharmacological, and molecular mechanisms of discriminative drug effects. In: Goldberg SR, Stolerman IP (eds) Behavioral analysis of drug dependence. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 161–193Google Scholar
  7. Colpaert FC, Janssen, PAJ (1982) Factors regulating drug cue sensitivity: Limits of discriminability and the role of progressively decreasing training dose in cocaine-saline discrimination. Neuropharmacology 21:1187–1194Google Scholar
  8. Colpaert FC, Niemegeers CJE, Jannssen PAJ (1976) Fentanyl and apomorphine: asymmetrical generalization of discriminative stimulus properties. Neuropharmacology 15:541–545Google Scholar
  9. Colpaert FC, Niemegeers CJE, Kuyps JJMC, Janssen PAJ (1977a) Narcotic cue and narcotic state: differential involvement of brain 5-hydroxytryptamine. Neuropharmacology 16:65–70Google Scholar
  10. Colpaert FC, Niemegeers CJE, Janssen PAJ (1977b) Effects of alpha-methyl-p-tyrosine, adrenolytic compounds pimozide, and other neuroleptics on the narcotic cue. Arch Int Pharmacodyn 225:308–316Google Scholar
  11. Colpaert FC, Niemeggers CJE, Janssen PAJ (1980) Factors regulating drug cue sensitivity: limits of discriminability and the role of a progressively decreasing training dose in fentanylsaline discrimination. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 213:474–480Google Scholar
  12. Cooper JR, Bloom FE, Roth RH (1986) The biochemical basis of neuropharmacology. 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. D'Mello GD, Stolerman IP (1977) Comparison of the discriminative properties of cocaine and amphetamine in rats. Br J Pharmacol 61:415–422Google Scholar
  14. France CP, Woods JH (1985a) Effects of morpine, naltrexone, and dextroorphan in untreated and morphine-treated pigeons. Psychopharmacology 85:377–382Google Scholar
  15. France CP, Woods JH (1985b) Antagonism and rate-suppressing effects of opioid antagonists in the pigeon. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 235:442–447Google Scholar
  16. France CP, Woods JH (1985c) Opiate agonist-antagonist, interactions: applications of a three-key drug discrimination procedure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 234:81–89Google Scholar
  17. France CP, Jacobsen, AE, Woods JH (1984) Discriminative stimulus effects of reversible and irreversible opitate agonists: morphine, oxymorphazone, and buprenorphine. J Pharmacol. Exp Ther 230:652–657Google Scholar
  18. Gauvin DV, Young AM (1988) Perceptual masking of drug stimuli. Drug Dev Res (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Gauvin DV, Young AM (1989) Effects of prior saline-morphine discrimination by pigeons on three-way discrimination including two morphine doses. Psychopharmacology 98:222–230Google Scholar
  20. Gianutsos G, Lal H (1975) Effect of loperamide, haloperidol, and methadone in rats trained to discriminate morphine from saline. Psychopharmacology 41:267–270Google Scholar
  21. Gianutsos G, Lal H (1976) Selective interaction of drugs with a discriminable stimulus associated with narcotic action. Life Sci 19:88–91Google Scholar
  22. Herling S, Coale EH, Valentino RJ, Hein DW, Woods JH (1980) Narcotic discrimination in pigeons. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 214:139–146Google Scholar
  23. Herling S, Valentino RJ, Solomon RF, Woods JH (1984) Narcotic discrimination in pigeons: antagonism by naltrexone. Eur J Pharmacol 105:137–142Google Scholar
  24. Holtzman SG (1984) Discriminative stimulus properties of opioids that interact with mu, kappa, and PCP/sigma receptors. In: Seiden LS, Balster RL (eds) Behavioral pharmacology: the current status. Liss, New York, pp 131–147Google Scholar
  25. Hunt DE, Lipton DS, Goldsmith D, Strug DL (1984) Street pharmacology: uses of heroin and cocaine in the treatment of addiction. Drug Alcohol Depend 13:375–387Google Scholar
  26. Järbe TUC (1978) Discriminative stimulus properties of morphine in the pigeon. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 9:411–416Google Scholar
  27. Jasinski DR, Preston KL (1986) Evaluation of mixtures of morphine and d-amphetamine for subjective and physiological effects. Drug Alcohol Depend 17:1–13Google Scholar
  28. Kline FS, Young AM (1986) M. Differential modification of pentobarbital stimulus control by d-amphetamine and ethanol. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 25:1305–1313Google Scholar
  29. Kolers PA (1983) Perception and representation. Annu Rev Psychol 34:129–166Google Scholar
  30. Krimmer ED, McGuire MS, Barry III H (1984) Effects of training dose on generalization of morphine stimulus to clonidine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 20:669–673Google Scholar
  31. Lal H (1977) Drug-induced discriminable stimulus: past research and future perspectives. In: Lal H (ed) Discriminative stimulus properties of drugs. Plenum Press, New York, pp 207–231Google Scholar
  32. Lal H, Gianutsos G, Miksic S (1977) Discriminable stimuli produced by analgesics. In: Lal H (ed) Discriminative stimulus properties of drugs. Plenum Press, New York, pp 23–45Google Scholar
  33. Legge GE, Foley JM (1980) Contrast masking in human vision. J Opt Soc Am [A] 70:1458–1470Google Scholar
  34. McCarten MD, Lal H (1979) Attenuation of the discriminative stimulus strength of morphine by haloperidol. Neuropharmacology 18:465–467Google Scholar
  35. McMillan DE, Wolf PS, Carchman RA (1970) Antagonism of the behavioral effects of morphine and methadone by narcotic antagonists in the pigeon. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 175:443–458Google Scholar
  36. Miksic S, Shearman G, Lal H (1978) Generalization study with some narcotic and nonnarcotic drugs in rats trained for morphine-saline discrimination. Psychopharmacology 60:103–104Google Scholar
  37. Miksic S, Shearman GT, Lal H (1980) Differential enhancement of narcotic discrimination and analgesia by amphetamine and haloperidol: an evidence for distinct mechanisms underlying analgesia and euphoria. Subst Alcohol Actions/Misuse 1:281–285Google Scholar
  38. O'Connel RJ (1985) Responses to pheronome blends in insect olfactory receptor neurons. J Comp Physiol 156:747–761Google Scholar
  39. Overton DA (1974) Experminetal methods for the study of statedependent learning. Fed Proc 33:1800–1813Google Scholar
  40. Overton DA (1979) Drug discrimination training with progressively lowered doses. Science 205:720–721Google Scholar
  41. Overton DA (1984) State dependent learning and drug discrimination. In: Iverson LL, Iverson SD, Snyder SH (eds) Handbook of psychopharmacology, vol. 18. Plenum Press, New York, pp 59–127Google Scholar
  42. Overton DA (1987) Applications and limitations of the drug discrimination method for the study of drug abuse. In: Bozarth MA (ed) Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs. Springer, New York Berlin Heidelberg Tokyo, pp 291–340Google Scholar
  43. Rosecrans JA, Goodloe MH, Bennett GJ, Hirschhorn ID (1973) Morphine as a discriminative cue: effects of amine depletors and nalaxone. Eur J Pharmacol 21:252–256Google Scholar
  44. Shannon HE, Holtzman SG (1979) Morphine training dose: a determinant of stimulus generalization to narcotic antagonists in the rat. Psychopharmacology 61:239–244Google Scholar
  45. Sperling G (1965) Temporal and spatial visual masking. I. Masking by impulse flashes. J Opt Soc Am 55:541–559Google Scholar
  46. Strug DL, Hunt DE, Goldsmith DS, Lipton DS, Spunt B (1985) Patterns of cocaine usage among methadone clients. Int J Addict 20:1163–1175Google Scholar
  47. Swedberg MDB, Järbe TUC (1982) Morphine, cue saliency: limits of discriminability and third state perception by pigeons. In: Colpaert FC, Slangen JL (eds) Drug discrimination: applications in CNS pharmacology. Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp 147–164Google Scholar
  48. Tallerida RJ, Jacob LS (1979) The dose-response relation in pharmacology. Springer, New York Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  49. Valentino RJ, Herling S, Woods JH (1981) The relationship between the acute effects of narcotic antagonists and the narcoticdependent state. Psychopharmacol Bull 17:51–54Google Scholar
  50. Wegel RL, Lane CE (1924) The auditory masking of one pure tone by another and it probable relation to the dynamics of the inner ear. Physiol Rev (Ser 2) 23:266–285Google Scholar
  51. White FJ, Appel JB (1982) Training dose as a factor in LSD-saline discrimination. Psychopharmacology 76:20–25Google Scholar
  52. White JM, Holtzman SG (1982) Properties of pentazocine as a discriminative stimulus in the squirrel monkey. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 233:396–401Google Scholar
  53. Woods JH, France CP, Bertalmio, AJ, Gmerek DE, Winger G (1984) Behavioral assessment of insurmountable narcotic agonists and antagonists. In: Seiden LS, Balster RL (eds) Behavioral pharmacology: the current status. Liss, New York, pp 75–92Google Scholar
  54. Young AM, Woods JH (1982) Limitations on the antagonistic actions of opioid antagonists. Fed Proc 41:2333–2338Google Scholar
  55. Zwislocki JJ (1978) Masking: experimental and theoretical aspects of simultaneous, forward, and central masking. In: Carterette EC, Friedman MP (eds) Handbook of perception, IV. Academic Press, Inc., New York, pp 283–334Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • David V. Gauvin
    • 1
  • Alice M. Young
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations