Advertisement

The Application of a Computer-Controlled Time Discrimination Performance to Problems in Behavioral Toxicology

  • Barry L. Johnson
  • W. Kent Anger
  • James V. Setzer
  • Charles Xintaras
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 5)

Abstract

Several recent studies have focused attention on the effects on behavior of certain chemical and physical agents found in community or occupational environments. The rationale of such behavioral toxicology investigations is twofold: First, changes in behavior may serve as an early indicator of later irreversible pathological damage which could result from higher, acute dosages of the toxicant or from chronic exposure to lesser amounts of the toxic agent; and second, the effects of a toxic agent on specific behaviors vital to the well- being of the subject must be identified in order to prevent adverse effects when the behavior in question is required as part of the subject’s daily routine. In the former instance, the dose-response data are more important than the specific behavior used to demonstrate the impairment; in the latter, the specific behavior under investigation is the critical factor. An example of the first situation is the report by Hänninen (1971), who administered a battery of psychological tests to 50 viscose rayon workers poisoned by carbon disulfide (CS2), fifty workers exposed to CS2 without known poisoning, and fifty workers not exposed to CS2. Large and statistically significant differences were noted between the group means of the poisoned and the unexposed group in most performances involving speed, vigilance, manual dexterity, and intelligence. The exposed group also showed performance impairment, but to a lesser degree than the poisoned group. Hänninen concluded that CS2 apparently affects the working capacity and sociability of exposed workers earlier than can be diagnosed by purely medical means. The second type of behavioral toxicology study is illustrated by those investigations concerned with the effects of carbon monoxide on automobile driving. An example is the report by Ray and Rockwell (1970), who demonstrated the effects of carbon monoxide on certain behaviors (e.g., estimation of brakelight brightness) required of express highway driving.

Keywords

Visual Stimulus Response Latency Duration Stimulus Reference Stimulus Response Switch 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beard, R. R. and N. Grandstaff. 1970. Behavioral responses to small doses of carbon monoxide. In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Environmental Toxicology, Vol. 1, pp. 93–106. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.Google Scholar
  2. Beard, R. R. and G. A. Wertheim. 1967. Behavioral impairment associated with small doses of carbon monoxide. American Journal of Public Health, 57:2012–2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Catania, A. C. 1970. Reinforcement schedules and psychophysical judgments. In: Schoenfeld, W. N., ed., The Theory of Reinforcement Schedules, pp. 1–42. New York, Appleton-Century- Crofts.Google Scholar
  4. Commins, B. T. and P. J. Lawther. 1965. A sensitive method for the determination of carboxy- haemoglobin in a finger prick sample of blood. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 22:139–143.Google Scholar
  5. Dominguez, A. M., H. E. Christensen, T. R. Goldbaum, and V. A. Stembridge. 1959. A sensitive procedure for determining carbon monoxide in blood and tissue utilizing gas-solid chromatography. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1:135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hänninen, H. 1971. Psychological picture of manifest and latent carbon disulphide poisoning. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 25:374–381.Google Scholar
  7. Hinners, R. G., J. K. Burkart, and C. L. Punte. 1968. Animal inhalation exposure chambers. Archives of Environmental Health, 16:194–206.Google Scholar
  8. Kaswan, J. and S. Young. 1965. Effect of luminance, exposure duration, and task complexity on reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69:393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kulp, R. A. and E. A. Alluisi. 1967. Effects of stimulus-response uncertainty on watchkeeping performance and choice reactions. Perception and Psychophysics, 2:511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Laties, V. G. and B. Weiss. 1966. Influence of drugs on behavior controlled by internal and external stimuli. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 152:388–396.Google Scholar
  11. Michon, J. A. 1964. Studies on subjective duration: 1. Differential sensitivity in the perception of repeated temporal intervals. Acta Psychologica, 22:441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mikulka, P., R. O’Donnell, P. Heinig, and J. Theodore. 1970. The effect of carbon monoxide on human performance. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 174:409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. O’Donnell, R. D., P. Chikos, and J. Theodore. 1971. Effect of carbon monoxide exposure on human sleep and psychomotor performance. Journal of Applied Physiology, 31:513–518.Google Scholar
  14. Ray, A. M. and T. H. Rockwell. 1970. An exploratory study of automobile driving performance under the influence of low levels of carboxyhemoglobin. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 174:396–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stewart, R. D., J. E. Peterson, E. D. Baretta, R. T. Bachand, M. J. Hosko, and A. A. Herrmann. 1970. Experimental human exposure to carbon monoxide. Archives of Environmental Health, 21:154–164.Google Scholar
  16. Tanner, W. P. and J. A. Swets. 1954. A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychological Review, 61:401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vernot, E. H., W. F. Mackenzie, J. D. MacEwen, P. N. Monteleone, M. E. George, P. M. Chikos, K. C. Back, A. A. Thomas, and C. C. Haun. 1970. Hematological effects of long- term continuous animal exposure to carbon monoxide. In:Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Environmental Toxicology, Vol. 1, pp. 7–22. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.Google Scholar
  18. Woodrow, H. 1928. Temporal discrimination in the monkey. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 8:395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© University of Rochester 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry L. Johnson
    • 1
  • W. Kent Anger
    • 1
  • James V. Setzer
    • 1
  • Charles Xintaras
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioral Studies Laboratory, Behavioral and Motivational Factors Branch, DLCDNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations