Psychopharmacology

, Volume 104, Issue 2, pp 150–156 | Cite as

Different patterns of behavior produced by haloperidol, pentobarbital, and dantrolene in tests of unconditioned locomotion and operant responding

  • Elizabeth O'Shea Hammond
  • Michael L. Torok
  • Aaron Ettenberg
Original Investigations

Abstract

Three motor-impairing drugs with different putative mechanisms of action (haloperidol 0.00, 0.075, 0.15, 0.30 mg/kg IP; pentobarbital 0.00, 4.5, 9, 12 mg/kg IP; and dantrolene 0.00, 5, 7.5, 10 mg/kg IP) produced strikingly similar patterns of dose-dependent attenuation in unconditioned locomotor behavior. However, the same drugs and doses produced highly divergent patterns of disruption when tested using different groups of rats in a food-rewarded operant task, which included both response initiation and maintenance components (FR1-FR1 two lever chain). Haloperidol animals began the session as fast as vehicle animals and slowed dose-dependently across trials; pentobarbital animals started off significantly slower than controls but soon achieved comparable speeds; and dantrolene animals were slower throughout the session. These results suggest that the observed neuroleptic-induced deterioration in responding over trials, especially in response initiation, was not simply a result of motoric disruption. Rather, the profile of this deterioration is consistent with the anhedonia hypothesis of neuroleptic action and supports the view that dopamine neurons are involved in the biological basis of food reward.

Key words

Response initiation Neuroleptics Anhedonia Locomotor behavior Operant behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldessarini RJ (1979) The “neuroleptic” antipsychotic drugs 2. Neurologic side effects. Postgrad Med 65:108–128Google Scholar
  2. Baldessarini RJ (1985) Drugs and the treatment of psychiatric disorders. In: Gilman AG, Goodman LS, Rall TW, Murad F (eds) The pharmacological basis of therapeutics. MacMillan, New York, pp 387–445Google Scholar
  3. Beninger RJ, Mason ST, Phillips AG, Fibiger HC (1980) The use of conditioned suppression to evaluate the nature of neuroleptic-induced avoidance deficits. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 213:623–627Google Scholar
  4. Berger PA, Elliot GR, Barchas JD (1978) Neuroregulators and schizophrenia. In: Lipton MA, DiMascio A, Killam KF (eds) Psychopharmacology: a generation of progress. Raven Press, New York, pp 1071–1082Google Scholar
  5. Costall B, Naylor RJ (1975) Detection of the neuroleptic properties of clozapine, sulpiride, and thioridazine. Psychopharmacologia 43:69–74Google Scholar
  6. DeRyck M, Schallert T, Teitelbaum P (1980) Morphine versus haloperidol catalepsy in the rats: a behavioral analysis of postural support mechanisms. Brain Res 201:143–172Google Scholar
  7. Ellis KO (1982) Clinical and pharmacological experiences on dantrolene sodium. In: Benvenuti C (ed) Dantrolene sodium: new therapeutic approach to clinical problems of spasticity. Minerva Medica, Turin, pp 35–49Google Scholar
  8. Ellis KO, Carpenter JF (1974) Mechanism of control of skeletal-muscle contraction by dantrolene sodium. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 55:362–369Google Scholar
  9. Ellis KO, Castellion AW, Honkomp LJ, Wessels FL, Carpenter JF, Halliday RP (1973) Dantrolene, a direct acting skeletal muscle relaxant. J Pharm Sci 62:948–951Google Scholar
  10. Ettenberg A (1989) Dopamine, neuroleptics and reinforced behaviors. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 13:105–111Google Scholar
  11. Ettenberg A, Cinsavich SA, White N (1979) Performance effects with repeated-response measures during pimozide-produced dopamine receptor blockade. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 11:557–561Google Scholar
  12. Ettenberg A, Gonzales K, Fowler SC (1989) Progressive withinsession decrements in response duration observed in rats responding for food reinforcement under neuroleptic challenge. Soc Neurosci Abstr 15:55Google Scholar
  13. Fenton HM, Liebman JM (1982) Self-stimulation response decrement patterns differentiate clonidine, baclofen and dopamine antagonists from drugs causing performance deficit. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 17:1207–1212Google Scholar
  14. Fibiger HC, Zis AP, Phillips AG (1975) Haloperidol-induced disruption of conditioned avoidance responding: attenuation by prior training or by anticholinergic drugs. Eur J Pharmacol 30:309–314Google Scholar
  15. Fielding S, Lal H (1978) Behavioral actions of neuroleptics. In: Iverson LL, Iverson SD, Snyder SH (eds) Handbook of psychopharmacology, vol 10. Plenum Press, New York, pp 91–128Google Scholar
  16. Fouriezos G, Wise RA (1976) Pimozide-induced extinction of intracranial self-stimulation: response patterns rule out motor or performance deficits. Brain Res 103:377–380Google Scholar
  17. Fouriezos G, Hansson P, Wise RA (1978) Neuroleptic-induced attenuation of brain stimulation in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 92:661–671Google Scholar
  18. Fowler SC (1991) Neuroleptics product within-session response decrements: facts and theories. Drug Dev Res (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Fowler SC, Filewich RJ, Leberer MR (1977) Drug effects upon force and duration of response during fixed-ratio performance in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 6:421–426Google Scholar
  20. Franklin KBJ, McCoy SN (1979) Pimozide-induced extinction in rats: stimulus control rules out motor deficit. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 11:71–76Google Scholar
  21. Gallistel CR, Davis AJ (1983) Affinity for the dopamine D2 receptor predicts neuroleptic potency in blocking the reinforcing effect of MFB stimulation. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 19:867–872Google Scholar
  22. Gallistel CR, Boytim M, Gomita Y, Klebanoff L (1982) Does pimozide block the reinforcing effect of brain stimulation? Pharmacol Biochem Behav 17:769–781Google Scholar
  23. Gerhardt S, Liebman J (1981) Differential effects of drug treatments on nose-poke and bar-press self-stimulation. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 15:767–771Google Scholar
  24. Gerhardt S, Prowse J, Liebman J (1982) Anxiolytic drugs selectively increase preferred duration of rewarding brain stimulation in a shuttlebox test. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 16:795–799Google Scholar
  25. Gramling SE, Fowler SC (1985) Effects of neuroleptics on rate and duration of operant versus reflexive licking in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 22:541–545Google Scholar
  26. Halpern JM, Canon J, Iorio LC (1986) Preclinical evaluation of deficits following hypnotic drug treatment. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 24:875–878Google Scholar
  27. Horvitz JC, Ettenberg A (1989) Haloperidol blocks the response-reinstating effects of food reward: a methodology for separating neuroleptic effects on reinforcement and motor processes. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 31:861–865Google Scholar
  28. Hornykiewicz O (1973) Parkinsonism induced by dopaminergic antagonists. In: Calne DB, Chase TN, Barbeau A (eds) Advances in neurology, vol 9. Raven Press, New York, pp 155–164Google Scholar
  29. Irwin S (1968) Anti-neurotics: Practical pharmacology of the sedative-hypnotics and minor tranquilizers. In: Efron DH (ed) Psychopharmacology: a review of progress 1957–1967. Public Health Service Publication 1836, Washington DC, pp 185–204Google Scholar
  30. Janssen PAJ, Niemegeers CJE, Shellekens KHL, Dresse A, Lenaerts FM, Pinchard A, Schaper WKA, van Nueten JM, Verbrugger FJ (1968) Pimozide, a chemically novel, highly potent and orally long-acting neuroleptic drug. Arzneimittelforschung 18:261–279Google Scholar
  31. Khanna JM, Campanelli C, Le Ad, Kalant H (1987) Effect of raphe lesions on the development of chronic tolerance to pentobarbital and cross-tolerance to ethanol. Psychopharmacology 91:473–478Google Scholar
  32. Liebman JM (1983) Discriminating between reward and performance: a critical review of intracranial self-stimulation methodology. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 7:45–72Google Scholar
  33. Ljungberg T (1987) Blockade by neuroleptics of water intake and operant responding for water in the rat: anhedonia, motor deficit, or both? Pharmacol Biochem Behav 27:341–350Google Scholar
  34. Marsden CD, Tarsy D, Baldessarini RJ (1975) Spontaneous and drug-induced movement disorders in psychiatric patients. In: Benson DF, Blumer D (eds) Psychiatric aspects of neurologic disease. Grune and Stratton, New York, pp 219–265Google Scholar
  35. Martin WR, Thompson WO, Fraser HF (1974) Comparison of graded single intramuscular doses of morphine and pentobarbital in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 6:623–630Google Scholar
  36. Olds ME (1972) Alterations by centrally acting drugs of the suppression of self-stimulation behavior in the rat by tetrabenazine, physostigmine, chlorpromazine and pentobarbital. Psychopharmacologia 25:299–314Google Scholar
  37. Patti F, Giammona G, Reggio A, Maccagnano C, Rampello L, di Giorgio RM, Panico AM, Nicoletti F (1981) Effects of dantrolene sodium on GABAergic activity in spinal cord, corpus striatum, substantia nigra and cerebral cortex in rat. Acta Neurol (Napoli) 36:384–388Google Scholar
  38. Salamone JD (1987) The actions of neuroleptic drugs on appetitive instrumental behaviors. In: Iverson LL, Iverson SD, Snyder SH (eds) Handbook of psychopharmacology, vol 19. Plenum Press, New York, pp 575–608Google Scholar
  39. Salamone JD (1988) Dopaminergic involvement in activational aspects of motivation: effects of haloperidol on schedule-induced activity, feeding, and foraging in rats. Psychobiology 16:196–206Google Scholar
  40. Shader RI, DiMascio A (1970) Psychotropic drug side effects: chemical and theoretical perspectives. Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  41. Shull RN, Holloway FA (1986) Effects of methylphenidate on the spontaneous activity levels of rats with selective hippocampal system damage. Life Sci 38:1135–1141Google Scholar
  42. Skjoldager P, Fowler SC (1988) Effects of pimozide, across doses and within sessions, on discriminated lever release performance in rats. Psychopharmacology 96:21–28Google Scholar
  43. Stein L (1962) An analysis of stimulus-duration preference in self-stimulation of the brain. J Comp Physiol Psychol 55:405–414Google Scholar
  44. Tombaugh TN, Tombaugh JW, Anisman H (1979) Effects of dopamine receptor blockade on alimentary behaviors: home cage food consumption, magazine training, operant acquisition, and performance. Psychopharmacology 66:219–225Google Scholar
  45. Tombaugh TN, Anisman H, Tombaugh J (1980) Extinction and dopamine receptor blockade after intermittent reinforcement training: failure to observe functional equivalence. Psychopharmacology 70:19–28Google Scholar
  46. Tombaugh TN, Grandmaison LJ, Zito KA (1982) Establishment of secondary reinforcement in sign tracking and place preference tests following pimozide treatment. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 17:665–670Google Scholar
  47. Ward A, Chaffman MO, Sorkin EM (1986) Dantrolene. Drugs 32:130–168Google Scholar
  48. Watson PJ, Cox VC (1976) An analysis of barbiturate-induced eating and drinking in the rat. Physiol Psychol 4:325–332Google Scholar
  49. Wirtshafter D, Asin KE (1985) Haloperidol and nonreinforcement produce different patterns of response slowing in a food reinforced runway task. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 22:661–663Google Scholar
  50. Wise RA (1982) Neuroleptics and operant behavior: the anhedonia hypothesis. Behav Brain Sci 5:39–87Google Scholar
  51. Wise RA, Colle LM (1984) Pimozide attenuates free feeding: best scores analysis reveals a motivational deficit. Psychopharmacology 84:446–451Google Scholar
  52. Wise RA, Raptis L (1986) Effects of naloxone and pimozide on initiation and maintenance measures of free feeding. Brain Res 368:62–68Google Scholar
  53. Wise RA, Rompre P-P (1989) Brain dopamine and reward. Ann Rev Psychol 40:191–225Google Scholar
  54. Wise RA, Spindler J, de Wit H, Gerber GJ (1978) Neuroleptic-induced “anhedonia” in rats: pimozide blocks reward quality of food. Science 201:262–264Google Scholar
  55. Wolgin DL (1985) Forelimb placing and hopping reflexes in haloperidol- and morphine-treated cataleptic rats. Behav Neurosci 99:423–435Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth O'Shea Hammond
    • 1
  • Michael L. Torok
    • 1
  • Aaron Ettenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations