Literature DB >> 11314676

Reinforcing effects of oral cocaine: contextual determinants.

H E Jones1, B E Garrett, R R Griffiths.   

Abstract

RATIONALE: Although the behavioral, subjective, and physiological effects of oral cocaine have been investigated, its reinforcing effects have not been demonstrated.
OBJECTIVE: The primary aims of this study were to examine the reinforcing effects of oral cocaine and determine whether such effects can be influenced by manipulating behavioral requirements following drug ingestion.
METHODS: Nine adult volunteers with histories of cocaine abuse were trained to discriminate between orally administered cocaine (100 mg/70 kg) and placebo capsules under double-blind conditions. Following acquisition of cocaine vs placebo discrimination (80% correct), the reinforcing effects of cocaine were determined using two different choice conditions (dependent and independent). Volunteers were first exposed to cocaine and placebo once each with a relaxation activity (sitting in a cushioned chair) and a vigilance activity (performing a computer task). Following exposure to each drug with each activity, volunteers began the dependent choice condition. Every 2 days volunteers chose which drug (cocaine or placebo) they ingested with the vigilance and relaxation activities. Volunteers could not choose the same drug with both activities. This procedure occurred 5 times over a 10-day period. The independent choice condition took place over 2 days. On one day, volunteers chose which drug (cocaine or placebo) they ingested with the relaxation activity and, on the other day (in counterbalanced order), which drug they ingested with the vigilance activity. Volunteers were allowed to select the same drug with both activities.
RESULTS: All volunteers successfully acquired the cocaine vs placebo discrimination. In the dependent choice condition, all volunteers significantly chose cocaine over placebo with the vigilance activity and chose placebo over cocaine with the relaxation activity. In the independent choice condition, volunteers significantly chose cocaine over placebo with the vigilance activity (i.e., cocaine functioned as a positive reinforcer in the vigilance context). Interestingly, the independent choice condition also showed that volunteers chose placebo over cocaine with the relaxation activity (i.e., cocaine functioned as a negative reinforcer because it was avoided relative to placebo).
CONCLUSION: The study shows that the behavioral requirements following drug ingestion can be a determinant of whether or not oral cocaine functions as a reinforcer in volunteers with histories of cocaine abuse.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11314676     DOI: 10.1007/s002130000626

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)        ISSN: 0033-3158            Impact factor:   4.530


  12 in total

1.  Replacing relative reinforcing efficacy with behavioral economic demand curves.

Authors:  Matthew W Johnson; Warren K Bickel
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Levels of neural progenitors in the hippocampus predict memory impairment and relapse to drug seeking as a function of excessive methamphetamine self-administration.

Authors:  Patrick Recinto; Anjali Rose H Samant; Gustavo Chavez; Airee Kim; Clara J Yuan; Matthew Soleiman; Yanabel Grant; Scott Edwards; Sunmee Wee; George F Koob; Olivier George; Chitra D Mandyam
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 7.853

3.  A direct comparison of the behavioral and physiological effects of methamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in humans.

Authors:  Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Erik W Gunderson; Audrey Y Perez; Margaret Haney; Richard W Foltin; Carl L Hart
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 4.530

4.  Reinforcing effects of methylphenidate: influence of dose and behavioral demands following drug administration.

Authors:  William W Stoops; Joshua A Lile; Mark T Fillmore; Paul E A Glaser; Craig R Rush
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2004-07-23       Impact factor: 4.530

5.  Reinforcing effects of modafinil: influence of dose and behavioral demands following drug administration.

Authors:  William W Stoops; Joshua A Lile; Mark T Fillmore; Paul E A Glaser; Craig R Rush
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2005-09-29       Impact factor: 4.530

6.  Cognitive effects of intramuscular ketamine and oral triazolam in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Lawrence P Carter; Bethea A Kleykamp; Roland R Griffiths; Miriam Z Mintzer
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 4.530

7.  Methamphetamine self-administration by humans subjected to abrupt shift and sleep schedule changes.

Authors:  Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Margaret Haney; Suzanne K Vosburg; Sandra D Comer; Richard W Foltin; Carl L Hart
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2008-12-04       Impact factor: 4.530

8.  Acute physiological and behavioral effects of intranasal methamphetamine in humans.

Authors:  Carl L Hart; Erik W Gunderson; Audrey Perez; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Andrew Thurmond; Sandra D Comer; Richard W Foltin
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2007-09-12       Impact factor: 7.853

9.  Novelty-induced locomotion is positively associated with cocaine ingestion in adolescent rats; anxiety is correlated in adults.

Authors:  Q David Walker; Nicole L Schramm-Sapyta; Joseph M Caster; Samuel T Waller; Matthew P Brooks; Cynthia M Kuhn
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  2008-08-28       Impact factor: 3.533

10.  Amphetamine analogs methamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) differentially affect speech.

Authors:  Gina F Marrone; Jennifer S Pardo; Robert M Krauss; Carl L Hart
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 4.530

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.