Agents and Actions

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 48–51 | Cite as

Psychophysics of psilocybin and 48-148-148-1

  • Jay H. Shaffer
  • Richard M. Hill
  • Roland Fischer
Other Topics


Visual, tactile and intermodal sensory magnitude estimations were performed by college students prior to and after the oral administration of either 160 μg/kg psilocybin or 30 mg Δ9-THC. Although the drugs induce inversely related changes in the exponent of the psychophysical power function (R=kS n ), the straight line relationship between log S (Stimulus) and log R (Response) is altered by neither psilocybin nor Δ9-THC. The remarkable consistency of magnitude estimations in the face of a changing exponent and constant may be interpreted as a demonstration of ‘state boundness’ (i.e., performance that is consistently changed and characteristic of a particular state of consciousness).


State Boundness College Student Oral Administration Power Function Magnitude Estimation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    S. S. Stevens,Issues in Psychophysical Measurement, Psychol. Rev.78, 426–450 (1971).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Fischer,A Cartography of the Ecstatic and Meditative States, Science174, 897–904 (1971).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Cotten,Symposium: Marihuana and Its Surrogates, Pharmac. Rev.23, 263–380 (1971).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    E. Poulton,The New Psychophysics: Six Models for Magnitude Estimation, Psychol. Bull.69 (1), 1–19 (1968).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. C. Baird,Psychophysical Analysis of Visual Space (Pergamon, Oxford 1970).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. S. Stevens,To Honor Fechner and Repeal His Law, Science133, 80–86 (1961).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Fischer andG. Landon,On the Arousal State-Dependent Recall of ‘Subconscious’ Experience: Stateboundness, Br. J. Psychiat.120, 159–172 (1972).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. Poulton,Choice of First Variables for Single and Repeated Multiple Estimates of Loudness, J. exp. Psychol.80, 249–253 (1969).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. C. Baird,A Cognitive Theory of Psychophysics, Scand. J. Psychol.II, 89–102 (1970).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Fischer, F. Griffin, R. Archer, S. Zinsmeister andP. Jastram,The Weber-Ratio in Gustatory Chemoreception; an Indicator of Systemic (Drug) Reactivity, Nature207, 1049–1053 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Fischer andR. Kaelbling Increase in Taste Acuity with Sympathetic Stimulation, in:Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry (Ed. J. Wortis; Grune and Stratton, New York 1967), p. 183–195.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    W. Hess,Das Zwischenhirn und die Regulierung von Kreislauf und Atmung (Thieme, Leipzig 1938);Das Zwischenhirn (Schwabe, Basel 1949).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Gellhorn,Further Studies on the Physiology and Pathophysiology of the Tuning of the Central Nervous System, Psychosomatics10, 94 (1969).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    H. von Foerster,Computing in the Semantic Domain, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.184, 239 (1971).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay H. Shaffer
    • 1
  • Richard M. Hill
    • 1
  • Roland Fischer
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Medicine and College of OptometryThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus
  2. 2.Drug Treatment and Research CenterVeterans Administration HospitalWashington, D. C.

Personalised recommendations