Abstract
Rats were trained to discriminate norfenfluramine (NF) 1.4 mg/kg from its vehicle or amphetamine (AMPH) 0.8 mg/kg or pentobarbital (PB) 6.0 mg/kg in order to determine the role that drug combination training plays in the rate of learning and sensitivity to lower drug doses. The results suggest that drug versus drug training can increase the rate of drug discrimination learning for some drugs that are learned slowly when trained in a drug versus vehicle training procedure, whereas drug versus drug training does not increase the rate of learning for other drugs that are learned rapidly. Drug versus drug training does, however, appear to increase the level of stimulus control of the training drug for all drugs examined in this study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barry III H, Krimmer EC (1979) Differential stimulus attributes of chlordiazepoxide and pentobarbital. Neuropharmacology 18:991–998
Boja JW, Schechter MD (1987) Behavioral effects of N-ethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 28:153–156
Boja JW, Schechter MD (1988) Norfenfluramine: the first active metabolite of fenfluramine can provide stimulus control in the drug discrimination procedure. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 31:305–311
Borroni E, Garattini S, Mennini T (1983) Differences betweend-fenfluramine andd-norfenfluramine in serotonin mechanisms. J Neurochem 40:891–893
Genovese RF, Dykstra LA (1983) Comparison of morphine and clonidine in rats trained to discriminate morphine or clonidine from vehicle or morphine from clonidine. Fed Proc 42:1363
Ho BT, Silverman P (1978) Stimulants as discriminative stimuli. In: Colpaert FC, Rosecrans JA (eds) Stimulus properties of drugs: ten years of progress. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, pp 53–68
Järbe TUC (1987) Drug discrimination learning. In: Greenshaw AJ, Dourish CT (eds) Experimental psychopharmacology. Humana Press, Clifton, New Jersey, pp 433–479
Järbe TUC, Ohlin CG (1979) Discriminative effects of combinations of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and pentobarbital in pigeons. Psychopharmacology 63:233–239
Järbe TUC, Swedberg MDB (1982) A conceptualization of drug discrimination learning. In: Colpacrt FC, Slangen JL (eds) Drug discrimination: applications in CNS pharmacology. Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp 327–341
Järbe TUC, Loman P, Swedberg MDB (1979) Evidence supporting lack of discriminative stimulus properties of a combination of maltrexone and morphine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 10:493–497
Koek W, Slangen JL (1982) The role of fentanyl training dose and of the alternate stimulus condition in drug generalization. Psychopharmacology 76:149–156
Krimmer EC, Barry III H (1979) Pentobarbital and chlordiazepoxide differentiated from each other and from nondrug. Commun Psychopharmacol 3:93–99
Litchfield JT, Wilcoxon F (1949) A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 96:99–106
Michaelis RC, Holohean AM, Criado JR, Harland RD, Hunter GA (1988) The chlordiazepoxide/pentylenetetrazol discrimination: characterization of drug interactions and homeostatic responses to drug challenges. Psychopharmacology 96:15–20
O'Neal MF, Mewans LW, Porter JH, Rosecrans JA, Mokler DJ (1988) Rats that acquire a THC discrimination more rapidly are more sensitive to THC and faster in reaching operant criteria. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 29:67–71
Overton DA (1971) Discriminative control of behavior by drug states. In: Thompson T, Pickens R (eds) Stimulus properties of drugs. Appleton-Century Crofts, New York, pp 87–110
Overton DA (1974) Experimental methods for the study of state-dependent learning. Fed Proc 33:1800–1813
Overton DA (1982a) Comparison of the degree of discriminability of various drugs using the T-maze drug discrimination paradigm. Psychopharmacology 76:385–395
Overton DA (1982b) Multiple drug training as a method for increasing the specificity of the drug discrimination procedure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 221:166–172
Richards DW III (1978) A functional analysis of the discriminative properties of amphetamine and pentobarbital. In: Ho BT, Richards DW III, Chute DL (eds) Drug discrimination and state dependent learning. Academic Press, New York San Francisco London, pp 227–247
Schechter MD (1981) Extended schedule transfer of ethanol discrimination. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 14:23–25
Schechter MD (1983) Drug sensitivity of individual rats determines degree of drug discrimination. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 19:1–4
Schechter MD, Boja JW (1988) Lack of generalization of nisoxetine with amphetamine in the rat. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 30:1085–1088
Slifer BL, Dykstra LA (1987) Discriminative stimulus effects of N-allynormetazocine in rats trained to discriminate a kappa from a sigma agonist. Life Sci 40:343–349
Stolerman IP, D'Mello GD (1981) Role of training condition in discrimination of central nervous system stimulants. Psychopharmacologia 73:295–303
Study RE, Barker JL (1981) Diazepam and (−) pentobarbital: fluctuation analysis reveals different mechanism for potentiation of gamma-aminobutyric acid responses in cultured central neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 11:7180–7184
Swedberg MDB, Järbe TUC (1985) Drug discrimination procedures: roles of relative stimulus control in two-drug cases. Psychopharmacology 86:444–451
Swedberg MDB, Loman P, Järbe TUC (1978) Effects of chlormethiazole (Heminevrin®) on drug discrimination and open-field behavior in gerbils. Psychopharmacology 59:165–170
Winter JC (1981) Drug induced stimulus control and the concept of breaking point: LSD and quipazine. Psychopharmacology 72:217–218
Witkin JM, Carter RB, Dykstra LA (1980) Discriminative stimulus properties ofd-amphetamine-pentobarbital combinations. Psychopharmacology 68:269–276
Young R, Glennon RA (1986) Discriminative stimulus properties of amphetamine and structurally-related phenalkylamines. Med Res Rev 6:99–130
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boja, J.W., Schechter, M.D. Increased drug sensitivity in the drug discrimination procedure afforded by drug versus drug training. Psychopharmacology 102, 221–226 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02245925
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02245925