Skip to main content
Log in

Drug discrimination procedures: Differential characteristics of the drug A vs drug B and the drug A vs drug B vs no drug cases

  • Original Investigations
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Colpaert FC, Rosecrans JA (eds) (1978) Stimulus properties of drugs: ten years of progress. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam New York Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Colpaert FC, Slangen JL (eds) (1982) Drug discrimination: applications in CNS pharmacology. Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam New York Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper JR, Bloom FE, Roth RH (1974) The biochemical basis of neuropharmacology. Oxford University Press, New York London Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • France CP, Woods JH (1985) Opiate agonist-antagonist interactions: applications of a three-key drug discrimination procedure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 234:81–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays WL (1970) Statistics. Holt Rinehart and Winston, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho BT, Richards III DW, Chute DL (eds) (1978) Drug discrimination and state dependent learning. Academic Press, New York San Francisco London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk RE (1968) Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal H (ed) (1977) Discriminative stimulus properties of drugs. Plenum, New York London

    Google Scholar 

  • Leberer MR, Fowler SC (1977) Drug discrimination and generalization in pigeons. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 7:483–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Litchfield JT, Wilcoxon F (1949) A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 96:99–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Overton DA (1967) Differential responding in a three choice maze controlled by three drug states. Psychopharmacologia 11:376–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Overton DA, Merkle DA, Hayes ML (1983) Are “no-drug” cues discriminated during drug-discrimination training? Anim Learn Behav 11:295–301

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York Toronto London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg MDB (1985) A model of discrimination learning with interoceptive stimuli. Doctoral thesis at the Faculty of Social Sciences. University of Uppsala, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg MDB, Järbe TUC (1984) Effects of introducing a third, non-drug condition, into a drug A versus drug B discrimination. Psychopharmocology 83:S3

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg MDB, Järbe TUC (1985) Drug discrimination procedures: roles of relative stimulus control in two-choice cases. Psychopharmacology 86:444–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg MDB, Loman P, Järbe TUC (1978) Effects of chlormethiazole (HeminevrinR) on drug discrimination and open-field behavior in gerbils. Psychopharmacology 59:165–170

    Google Scholar 

  • White JM, Holtzman SG (1981) Three-choice drug discrimination in the rat: morphine, cyclazocine and saline. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 217:254–262

    Google Scholar 

  • White JM, Holtzman SG (1983a) Three-choice drug discrimination: phencyclidine-like stimulus effects of opioids. Psychopharmacology 80:1–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00179188

Key words

Navigation