A Preference Procedure that Compares Efficacy of Different Intravenous Drug Reinforcers in the Rhesus Monkey

  • Robert L. Balster
  • Charles R. Schuster
Part of the Advances in Behavioral Biology book series (ABBI, volume 21)


A number of animal species, including man, will perform operant responses for intravenous injections of various psychoactive drugs. The comparability between certain aspects of infrahuman drug self-administration and human drug abuse (see Schuster and Thompson, 1969; Schuster and Johanson, 1974 for reviews) has validated the use of laboratory animals as a means of studying elements of human drugtaking behavior under highly controlled conditions. One of the problems with research in this area has been that, in addition to reinforcing behavior which precede them, drug injections can also affect subsequent responding. For example, an injection of cocaine will reinforce the response which produced it but may also increase the likelihood of responding over the next few minutes because cocaine often increases response rates when given noncontingently. An important area of current research concerns the development of new dependent variables that can separate the reinforcing effects of drugs from their other behavioral effects.


Rhesus Monkey Stimulus Light Discrimination Training Choice Procedure Discrimination Reversal 
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. Balster, R.L. and Schuster, C.R.: A comparison of d-amphetamine, 1-amphetamine, and methamphetamine self-administration in the rhesus monkey. Pharmac. Biochem. Behay. 1, 67–71 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brady, J.V., Griffiths, R., and Winger, G.: formance procedures and the evaluation dependency potential. In: Hypnotics: and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  3. Kagan, F., Harwood, T. A.D., and Sorer, H., Eds., pp. 221–235. Spectrum Publications, Inc., 1975. Drug-maintained per-of sedative hypnotic Methods of Development, Rickels, K., Rudzik, Holliswood, New York:Google Scholar
  4. Catania, A.C.: Concurrent performances: A baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. J. exp. Analysis Behay. 6, 299300 (1963).Google Scholar
  5. Deneau, G., Yanagita, T., and Seevers, M.H.: Self-administration of psychoactive substances by the monkey: A measure of psycho- logical dependence. Psychopharmacologia 16, 30–48 (1969).Google Scholar
  6. Findley, J.P., Robinson, W.W., and Peregrino, L.: Addiction to secobarbital and chlordiazepoxide in the rhesus monkey by means of â self-infusion preference procedure. Psychopharmacologia 26, 93–114 (1972).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldberg, S.R., Hoffmeister, F., Schlicting, U.U., and Wuttke, W.: A comparison of pentobarbital and cocaine self-administration in rhesus monkeys: Effects of dose and fixed-ratio parameter. J. Pharmac. exp. Ther. 179, 277–283 (1971).Google Scholar
  8. Hoffineister, F. and Schlicting, U.U.: Reinforcing properties of some opiates and opioids in rhesus monkeys with histories of cocaine and codeine self-administration. Psychopharrnacologia 23, 55–74 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hollard, V. and Davison, M.C.: Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers. J. exp. Analysis Behay. 16, 375–380 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Iglauer, C. and Woods, J.H.: Concurrent performances: Reinforcement by different doses of intravenous cocaine in rhesus monkeys. J. exp. Analysis Behay. 22, 179–196 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johanson, C.E. and Schuster, C.R.: A choice procedure for drug reinforcers: Cocaine and methylphenidate in the rhesus monkey. J. Pharmac. exp. Ther. 193, 676–687 (1975).Google Scholar
  12. Neuringer, A.J.: Effects of reinforcement magnitude on choice and rate of responding. J. exp. Analysis Behay. 10, 417–424 (1967).Google Scholar
  13. Schuster, C.R. and Balster, R.L.: Self-administration of agonists. In: Agonist and Antagonist Action of Narcotic Analgesic Drugs. Kosterlitz, H.W., Collier, H.O.J., and Villarreal, J.E., Eds., pp. 243–254. London: MacMillan, 1973.Google Scholar
  14. Schuster, C.R. and Johanson, C.E.: The use of animal models for the study of drug abuse. In: Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, R.J., Israel, Y., Kalant, H., Popham, R.E., Schmidt, W., and Smart, R.G., Eds., Vol. 1, pp. 1–31. New York: John Wiley, 1974.Google Scholar
  16. Schuster, C.R. and Thompson, T.: Self-administration of and behavioral dependence on drugs. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol. 9, 483–502 (1969).Google Scholar
  17. Thompson, T. and Schuster, C.R.: Behavioral Pharmacology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.Google Scholar
  18. Yanagita, T.: An experimental framework for evaluation of dependence liability of various types of drugs in monkeys. Bull. Narcotics 25, 7–17 (1973).Google Scholar
  19. Yokel, R.A. and Pickens, R.: Drug level of d-and 1-amphetamine during intravenous self-administration. Psychopharmacologia 34, 255–264 (1974).Google Scholar
  20. Wilson, M.C., Hitomi, M., and Schuster, C.R.: Psychomotor stimulant self-administration as a function of dosage in the rhesus monkey. Psychopharmacologia 22, 271–281 (1971).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Balster
    • 1
  • Charles R. Schuster
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacological and Physiological SciencesUniversity of Chicago, Pritzker School of MedicineUSA

Personalised recommendations