RATIONALE: Temporal differentiation of operant behaviour is sensitive to dopaminergic manipulations. Studies using the fixed-interval peak procedure implicated D2 dopamine receptors in these effects. Less is known about the effects of dopaminergic manipulations on temporal differentiation in other timing schedules. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of a D1 antagonist,8-bromo-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-3-methyl-5-phenyl-1H-3-benzazepin-7-ol (SKF-83566), and a D2 antagonist, haloperidol, on performance on the free-operant psychophysical procedure, and the ability of these antagonists to reverse the effects of the catecholamine-releasing agent, d-amphetamine on performance. The antagonists' ability to reverse d-amphetamine-induced hyperlocomotion was also examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rats responded on two levers (A and B) under a free-operant psychophysical schedule, in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A during the first half, and B during the second half, of 50-s trials. Logistic functions were fitted to the relative response rate data (percent responding on B [%B] vs time [t]) in each treatment condition, and quantitative timing indices [T50 (value of t corresponding to %B=50) and Weber fraction] were compared among treatments. Effects of the treatments on locomotion were measured in a separate experiment. RESULTS: SKF-83566 (0.015, 0.03, 0.06 mg kg(-1)) did not affect timing performance. Haloperidol (0.025, 0.05 mg kg(-1)) had no effect; a higher dose (0.1 mg kg(-1)) reduced T (50). d-Amphetamine (0.4 mg kg(-1)) reduced T50; this effect was antagonised by SKF-83566 but not by haloperidol. Both antagonists reduced d-amphetamine-induced hyperlocomotion. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that d-amphetamine's effect on performance in the free-operant psychophysical procedure is mediated by D1 rather than D2 receptors.
RATIONALE: Temporal differentiation of operant behaviour is sensitive to dopaminergic manipulations. Studies using the fixed-interval peak procedure implicated D2 dopamine receptors in these effects. Less is known about the effects of dopaminergic manipulations on temporal differentiation in other timing schedules. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of a D1 antagonist,8-bromo-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-3-methyl-5-phenyl-1H-3-benzazepin-7-ol (SKF-83566), and a D2 antagonist, haloperidol, on performance on the free-operant psychophysical procedure, and the ability of these antagonists to reverse the effects of the catecholamine-releasing agent, d-amphetamine on performance. The antagonists' ability to reverse d-amphetamine-induced hyperlocomotion was also examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Rats responded on two levers (A and B) under a free-operant psychophysical schedule, in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A during the first half, and B during the second half, of 50-s trials. Logistic functions were fitted to the relative response rate data (percent responding on B [%B] vs time [t]) in each treatment condition, and quantitative timing indices [T50 (value of t corresponding to %B=50) and Weber fraction] were compared among treatments. Effects of the treatments on locomotion were measured in a separate experiment. RESULTS:SKF-83566 (0.015, 0.03, 0.06 mg kg(-1)) did not affect timing performance. Haloperidol (0.025, 0.05 mg kg(-1)) had no effect; a higher dose (0.1 mg kg(-1)) reduced T (50). d-Amphetamine (0.4 mg kg(-1)) reduced T50; this effect was antagonised by SKF-83566 but not by haloperidol. Both antagonists reduced d-amphetamine-induced hyperlocomotion. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that d-amphetamine's effect on performance in the free-operant psychophysical procedure is mediated by D1 rather than D2 receptors.
Authors: S S al-Zahrani; M Y Ho; D N Velazquez Martinez; M Lopez Cabrera; C M Bradshaw; E Szabadi Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: T H C Cheung; G Bezzina; C L Hampson; S Body; K C F Fone; C M Bradshaw; E Szabadi Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: S Body; T H C Cheung; G Bezzina; K Asgari; K C F Fone; J C Glennon; C M Bradshaw; E Szabadi Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2006-10-19 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: C M Olarte-Sánchez; L Valencia-Torres; H J Cassaday; C M Bradshaw; E Szabadi Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Adam L Halberstadt; Ivan S Sindhunata; Kees Scheffers; Aaron D Flynn; Richard F Sharp; Mark A Geyer; Jared W Young Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: S Body; T H C Cheung; C L Hampson; F S den Boon; G Bezzina; K C F Fone; C M Bradshaw; E Szabadi Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2008-11-19 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Yusuf S Althobaiti; Farooq M Almutairi; Fahad S Alshehri; Ebtehal Altowairqi; Aliyah M Marghalani; Amal A Alghorabi; Walaa F Alsanie; Ahmed Gaber; Hashem O Alsaab; Atiah H Almalki; Alqassem Y Hakami; Turki Alkhalifa; Ahmad D Almalki; Ana M G Hardy; Zahoor A Shah Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: L Valencia-Torres; C M Olarte-Sánchez; S Body; K C F Fone; C M Bradshaw; E Szabadi Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: L Valencia-Torres; C M Olarte-Sánchez; S Body; T H C Cheung; K C F Fone; C M Bradshaw; E Szabadi Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 3.332