, Volume 91, Issue 1, pp 56–60 | Cite as

A comparison of testing procedures on the discriminative morphine stimulus

  • George L. Kaempf
  • Mary Jeanne Kallman
Original Investigations


The study investigated the effects of reinforcement and non-reinforcement during test sessions, and the effects of duration of generalization test sessions on the generalization of a morphine-induced discriminative stimulus. Rats were trained to discriminate 3 mg/kg morphine from saline in a two-lever drug discrimination task and were then tested for generalization of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 mg/kg morphine with the training drug under both reinforced and non-reinforced contingencies during 4-min test periods. The percentage of drug-appropriate responses and response rates were recorded for the first 2 min and the second 2 min of each test session. A higher proportion of drug-appropriate responding occurred with an intermediate dose of morphine when reinforcement was available during test sessions. The frequency of responding was higher during the last 2 min than during the first 2 min of reinforced test sessions. The changes in response rate observed between the first 2 min and the last 2 min of the test sessions also depended on the reinforcement contingency available and the dose of morphine administered presession. The testing parameters thus altered the degree of generalization and the shape of the generalization curve of the morphine discrimination.

Key words

Drug discrimination Drug generalization Reinforcement contingencies Discriminative stimulus Schedule-control Morphine Rats 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chance WT, Murfin D, Krynock GM, Rosecrans JA (1977) A description of the nicotine stimulus and tests of its generalization to amphetamine. Psychopharmacology 55:19–26Google Scholar
  2. Colpaert FC (1977) Drug-produced cues and states: somes theoretical and methodological inferences. In: Harbans Lal (ed) Discriminative stimulus properties of drugs. Plenum, New York, pp 5–21Google Scholar
  3. Colpaert FC, Niemegeers CJE, Janssen PAJ (1976) Theoretical and methodological considerations in drug discrimination learning. Psychopharmacologia 46:169–177Google Scholar
  4. D'Mello GD, Stolerman IP (1978) Methodological issues in drug discrimination research. In: Colpaert FC, Rosecrans JA (eds) Stimulus properties of drugs: ten years of progress. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp 243–252Google Scholar
  5. Goldstein A (1964) Biostatistics: an introductory text. Macmillan, New York, pp 129–191Google Scholar
  6. Greenberg I, Kuhn DM, Appel JB (1975) Behaviorally induced sensitivity to the discriminable properties of LSD. Psychopharmacologia 43:229–232Google Scholar
  7. Herling S, Woods JH (1981) Discriminative stimulus effects of etorphine in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology 72:265–267Google Scholar
  8. Jarbe TUC, Henriksson BG (1974) Discriminative response control produced with hashish, tetrahydrocannabinols, and other drugs. Psychopharmacologia 40:1–16Google Scholar
  9. Jarbe TUC, Johansson JO, Henriksson BG (1976) Characteristics of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) produced discrimination in rats. Psychopharmacology 48:181–187Google Scholar
  10. Jarbe TUC, Rollenhagen C (1978) Morphine as a discriminative stimulus in gerbils: drug generalization and antagonism. Psychopharmacology 58:231–235Google Scholar
  11. Jones CN, Grant LD, Vospalek DM (1976) Temporal parameters ofd-amphetamine as a discriminative stimulus in the rat. Psychopharmacologia 46:59–64Google Scholar
  12. Kallman MJ, Rosecrans JA (1978) Drug discrimination paradigms. In: Colpaert FC, Rosecrans JA (eds) Stimulus properties of drugs: ten years of progress. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp 253–263Google Scholar
  13. Koek W, Slangen JL (1982) The role of fentanyl training dose and the alternative stimulus condition in drug generalization. Psychopharmacology 76:149–156Google Scholar
  14. Kubena RK, Barry H (1969) Generalization by rats of alcohol and atropine stimulus characteristics to other drugs. Psychopharmacologia 15:196–206Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn DM, Appel JB, Greenberg I (1974) An analysis of some discriminative properties ofd-amphetamine. Psychopharmacologia 39:57–66Google Scholar
  16. Overton DA (1964) State dependent or “dissociated” learning produced with pentobarbital. Comp Physiol Psychol 57:3–12Google Scholar
  17. Overton DA (1974) Experimental methods for the study of state-dependent learning. Fed Proc 33:1800–1813Google Scholar
  18. Overton DA (1979) Influence of shaping procedures and schedule of reinforcement on performance in the two bar drug discrimination task. Psychopharmacology 65:291–298Google Scholar
  19. Overton DA (1982) Multiple drug training as a method of increasing the specificity of the drug discrimination procedure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 221:166–172Google Scholar
  20. Schechter MD (1981) Extended schedule transfer of ethanol discrimination. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 14:23–25Google Scholar
  21. Schechter MD, Rosecrans JA (1971) CNS effects of nicotine as the discriminative stimulus for the rat in a t-maze. Life Sci 10:821–832Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • George L. Kaempf
    • 1
  • Mary Jeanne Kallman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Psychology and PharmacologyUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations