Second-order schedules of drug injection

  • S. R. Goldberg
  • R. T. Kelleher
  • W. H. Morse
Part of the FASEB Monographs book series (FASEBM, volume 4)


Key-press responding of squirrel monkeys produced intravenous injections of cocaine under two simple types of schedule. Under a fixed-ratio schedule, every 30th response produced an injection; steady responding at high rates of over one per second were maintained during each fixed-ratio component. Under a fixed-interval schedule, the first response occurring after a fixed time of 5 min produced an injection; there was a pause at the start of each interval and then progressively increasing responding until cocaine was injected at the end of the interval. Both squirrel monkeys and rhesus monkeys also were studied under second-order schedules of drug injection. Under one type of second-order schedule, studied only in squirrel monkeys, completion of each fixed-interval component produced only a 2-sec light; completion of the 10th fixed-interval component produced the brief light and an intravenous injection of cocaine. Under a second type of second-order schedule, each fixed-ratio component completed during a fixed time interval (5 or 60 min) produced only a 2-sec light; the first fixed-ratio component completed after the interval of time elapsed produced the brief light and an intravenous (squirrel monkeys) or intramuscular (rhesus monkeys) injection of cocaine. Under both types of second-order schedules, repeated sequences of responding were maintained during each session and characteristic fixed-interval or fixed-ratio patterns of responding were controlled by the brief visual stimuli.—Goldberg, S. R., R. T. Kelleher AND W. H. Morkse. Second-order schedules of drug injection. Federation Proc. 34: 1771–1776, 1975.


Rhesus Monkey Drug Injection Squirrel Monkey Cocaine Injection Cumulative Record 
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.
    Balster, R. L., C. E. Johanson, R. T. Harris and C. R. Schuster. Phencyclidine self-administration in the rhesus monkey. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 1: 167–172, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deneau, G. A., T. Yanagita and M. H. Seevers. Self-administration of psychoactive substances by the monkey. A measure of psychological dependence. Psychopharmacologia 16: 30–48, 1969.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferster, C. B., and B. F. Skinner. Schedules of Reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldberg, S. R. Sequences of rapid responding maintained by cocaine self-injection in squirrel monkeys. Pharmacologist 13: 28, 1971.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldberg, S. R. Control of behavior by stimuli associated with drug injections. In: Psychic Dependence: Definition, Assessment in Animal and Man, edited by L. Goldberg and F. Hoffmeister. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1973, p. 106–109.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, S. R. Comparable behavior maintained under fixed-ratio and second-order schedules of food presentation, cocaine injection or d-amphetamine injection in the squirrel monkey. J. Pharmacol Exp. Ther. 186: 18–30, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldberg, S. R., F. Hoffmeister, U. U. Schlichting and W. Wuttke. A comparison of pentobarbital and cocaine self-administration in rhesus monkeys: effects of dose and fixed-ratio parameter. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 179: 277–283, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg, S. R., and W. H. Morse. Behavior maintained by intramuscular injections of morphine or cocaine in the rhesus monkey. Pharmacologist 15: 236, 1973.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffmeister, F., and U. U. Schlichting. Reinforcing properties of some opiates and opioids in rhesus monkeys with histories of cocaine and codeine self-administration. Psychopharmacologia 23: 55–74, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelleher, R. T. Chaining and conditioned reinforcement. In: Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application, edited by W. K. Honig. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966, p. 160–212.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelleher, R. T. Conditioned reinforcement in second-order schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 9: 475–485, 1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelleher, R. T., and W. H. Morse. Determinants of the specificity of behavioral effects of drugs. Ergeb. Physiol. Biol. Chem. Exp. Pharmakol. 60: 1–56, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vaillant, G. E. The natural history of urban narcotic drug addition-some determinants. In: Scientific Basis of Drug Dependence, edited by H. Steinberg. London: Churchill, 1969, p. 341–361.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wlkler, A. Conditioning factors in opiate addiction and relapse. In: Narcotics, edited by D. M. Wilner and G. G. Kassebaum. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965, p. 85–100.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilson, M. C., M. Hitomi and C. R. Schuster. Psychomotor stimulant self-administration as a function of dosage per injection in the rhesus monkey. Psychopharmacologia 22: 271–281, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woods, J. H., F. Ikomi and G. Winger. The reinforcing property of ethanol. In: Biological Aspects of Alcohol, edited by J. P. Creaven and M. K. Roach. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1971, p. 371–388.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. R. Goldberg
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. T. Kelleher
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. H. Morse
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Psychobiology, Department of PsychiatryHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.New England Regional Primate Research CenterSouthboroughUSA

Personalised recommendations