Advertisement

Discriminative Stimulus Functions of Drugs: Interpretations

  • A. Charles Catania
  • J. Bruce Overmier

Abstract

In any study of drugs, it is difficult if not impossible to ignore the fundamental pharmacologic principle that no drug has a single action. Tht, principle is important not only because it is relevant to specific experimental problems but also because it so precisely parallels a principle of overriding importance in the analysis of behavior: no stimulus has a single action. We ordinarily speak of this behavioral principle in terms of the multiple functions of stimuli, and it is illustrated in any experiment concerned with controlling relationships between stimuli and responses. For example, an experiment that deals with an elicitation relationship must be designed carefully to avoid confounding elicitation with the potential reinforcing or discriminative effects of the eliciting stimulus. The principle is also illustrated in the organization of this book, which, in speaking of the stimulus properties of drugs, separates these into discriminative and eliciting and reinforcing properties.

Keywords

Stimulus Control Stimulus Property Transfer Test Negative Reinforcement Temporal Discrimination 
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. Catania, A.C. Reinforcement schedules and psychophysical judgments: A study of some temporal properties of behavior. In W.N. Schoenfeld, ed., The Theory of Reinforcement Schedules, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970, 142.Google Scholar
  2. Cook, L. Behavior changes with antipsychotic drugs in animals. In D. Bente and P.B. Bradley, eds., Neuropsychopharmacology. Vol. 4. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1965, 91–99.Google Scholar
  3. Cook, L. and Catania, A.C. Effects of drugs on avoidance and escape behavior. Fed. Proc, 1964, 23, 818–835.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook, L., Davidson, D.J., and Kelleher, R.T. Epinephrine, norepinephrine, and acetylcholine as conditioned stimuli for avoidance behavior. Science, 1960, 131, 990–991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobrzecka, C., Szwejokowska, G., and Konorski, J. Qualitative versus directional cues in two forms of differentiation. Science, 1966, 153, 87–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garcia, J., and Koelling, R.A. Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4, 123–124.Google Scholar
  7. Girden, E. Cerebral mechanisms in conditioning under curare. Amer. J. Psychol., 1940, 53, 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Girden, E. Girden, E.Girden, E.and Culler, E. Conditioned responses in curarized striate muscle in dogs. J. Comp. Psychol., 1937, 23, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herrick, C. J. The Brain of the Tiger Salamander, Ambystoma Tigrinum. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1948.Google Scholar
  10. Konorski, J. The Integrative Activity of the Brain. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  11. Overton, D.A. State-dependent learning produced by depressant and atropine-like drugs. Psychopharmacologia (Bed.), 1966, 10, 6–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Trapold, M.A. Are expectancies based upon different positive reinforcing events dis-criminably different? Learning and Motivation, 1970, 1, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Charles Catania
    • 1
  • J. Bruce Overmier
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations