Abstract
Two groups of pigeons with a history of two choice operant drug discrimination tasks (3.0 mg/kg morphine versus 5.6 mg/kg cocaine, and 3.0 mg/kg morphine versus 3.0 mg/kg cocaine, respectively; Swedberg and Järbe 1985) were subjected to three choice tasks in which responses on a third manipulandum were reinforced in the no drug condition. Training drugs generalization gradients in both groups were similar to those normally obtained in two choice drug versus no drug tasks. The salience differences between the training stimuli within the groups observed in the previous two choice task did not differentially affect the three choice discrimination gradients. Tests with novel drugs after the introduction of the no drug condition yielded increased responding to the no drug condition with the exception of the dopamine agonist apomorphine. Results are discussed in terms of a discrimination learning model specifying principles of relative discriminative stimulus control in various discrimination cases.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Catania AC (1971) Discriminative stimulus functions of drugs: interpretations. In: Thompson T, Pickens R (eds) Stimulus properties of drugs. Appleton Century Crofts, New York, pp 149–155
Colpaert FC, Rosecrans JA (eds) (1978) Stimulus properties of drugs: ten years of progress. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam New York Oxford
Colpaert FC, Slangen JL (eds) (1982) Drug discrimination: applications in CNS pharmacology. Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam New York Oxford
Cooper JR, Bloom FE, Roth RH (1974) The biochemical basis of neuropharmacology. Oxford University Press, New York London Toronto
France CP, Woods JH (1985) Opiate agonist-antagonist interactions: applications of a three-key drug discrimination procedure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 234:81–89
Hays WL (1970) Statistics. Holt Rinehart and Winston, London
Ho BT, Richards III DW, Chute DL (eds) (1978) Drug discrimination and state dependent learning. Academic Press, New York San Francisco London
Järbe TUC, Swedberg MDB (1982) A conceptualization of drug discrimination learning. In: Colpaert FC, Slangen JL (eds) Drug discrimination: applications in CNS pharmacology. Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam New York Oxford, pp 327–341
Kirk RE (1968) Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, California
Lal H (ed) (1977) Discriminative stimulus properties of drugs. Plenum, New York London
Leberer MR, Fowler SC (1977) Drug discrimination and generalization in pigeons. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 7:483–486
Litchfield JT, Wilcoxon F (1949) A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 96:99–113
Overton DA (1967) Differential responding in a three choice maze controlled by three drug states. Psychopharmacologia 11:376–378
Overton DA, Merkle DA, Hayes ML (1983) Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training? Anim Learn Behav 11:295–301
Pieri L, Keller HH, Burkard W, Da Prada M (1978) Effects of lisuride and LSD on cerebral monoamine systems and hallucinosis. Nature 272:278–280
Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York Toronto London
Sofia RD, Kubena RK, Barry H III (1974) Comparison among four vehicles and four routes for administering Δ9-tetra-hydrocannabinol. J Pharm Sci 63:939–941
Swedberg MDB (1985) A model of discrimination learning with interoceptive stimuli. Doctoral thesis at the Faculty of Social Sciences. University of Uppsala, Sweden
Swedberg MDB, Järbe TUC (1982) Morphine cue saliency: limits of discriminability and third state perception by pigeons. In: Colpaert FC, Slangen JL (eds) Drug discrimination: applications in CNS pharmacology. Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam New York Oxford, pp 147–164
Swedberg MDB, Järbe TUC (1984) Effects of introducing a third, non-drug condition, into a drug A versus drug B discrimination. Psychopharmocology 83:S3
Swedberg MDB, Järbe TUC (1985) Drug discrimination procedures: roles of relative stimulus control in two-choice cases. Psychopharmacology 86:444–451
Swedberg MDB, Loman P, Järbe TUC (1978) Effects of chlormethiazole (HeminevrinR) on drug discrimination and open-field behavior in gerbils. Psychopharmacology 59:165–170
White JM, Holtzman SG (1981) Three-choice drug discrimination in the rat: morphine, cyclazocine and saline. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 217:254–262
White JM, Holtzman SG (1983a) Three-choice drug discrimination: phencyclidine-like stimulus effects of opioids. Psychopharmacology 80:1–9
White JM, Holtzman SG (1983b) Further characterization of the three-choice morphine, cyclazocine and saline discrimination paradigm: opioids with agonist and antagonist properties. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 224:95–99
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Swedberg, M.D.B., Järbe, T.U.C. Drug discrimination procedures: Differential characteristics of the drug A vs drug B and the drug A vs drug B vs no drug cases. Psychopharmacology 90, 341–346 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00179188
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00179188