Daniel Kueh1, Lisa E Baker. 1. Department of Biological Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Relatively few studies have compared the discriminative stimulus effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and cocaine, and findings from different laboratories are somewhat inconsistent. One possible reason for discrepant results may be the use of different reinforcement schedules during discrimination training. OBJECTIVE: The present study compared fixed ratio (FR) 20 and variable interval (VI) 15-s reinforcement schedules to determine their influence on discrimination acquisition, response rates, frequency of reinforcements, and stimulus generalization in rats trained to discriminate cocaine or MDMA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate cocaine (10 mg/kg; n=16) or MDMA (1.5 mg/kg; n=16) from saline under either a FR 20 or a VI 15-s schedule of food reinforcement. Stimulus generalization tests were conducted with a range of doses of cocaine, MDMA, d-amphetamine, and lysergic acid diethylamide in all four training groups. RESULTS: The FR 20 schedule facilitated more rapid discrimination acquisition compared to the VI 15-s schedule and established differential response rates and frequency of reinforcement under drug and vehicle conditions. However, reinforcement schedule had little influence on stimulus generalization between MDMA and cocaine. Cocaine produced partial substitution for MDMA in both training groups (FR 20, 51%; VI 15-s, 58%). Likewise, MDMA produced only partial substitution for cocaine in both training groups (FR 20, 40%; VI 15-s, 72%). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that the number of sessions required to establish discriminative stimulus control varies with different reinforcement schedules. Nevertheless, training schedules alone do not appear to have significant effects on stimulus generalization between MDMA and cocaine.
RATIONALE: Relatively few studies have compared the discriminative stimulus effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and cocaine, and findings from different laboratories are somewhat inconsistent. One possible reason for discrepant results may be the use of different reinforcement schedules during discrimination training. OBJECTIVE: The present study compared fixed ratio (FR) 20 and variable interval (VI) 15-s reinforcement schedules to determine their influence on discrimination acquisition, response rates, frequency of reinforcements, and stimulus generalization in rats trained to discriminate cocaine or MDMA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate cocaine (10 mg/kg; n=16) or MDMA (1.5 mg/kg; n=16) from saline under either a FR 20 or a VI 15-s schedule of food reinforcement. Stimulus generalization tests were conducted with a range of doses of cocaine, MDMA, d-amphetamine, and lysergic acid diethylamide in all four training groups. RESULTS: The FR 20 schedule facilitated more rapid discrimination acquisition compared to the VI 15-s schedule and established differential response rates and frequency of reinforcement under drug and vehicle conditions. However, reinforcement schedule had little influence on stimulus generalization between MDMA and cocaine. Cocaine produced partial substitution for MDMA in both training groups (FR 20, 51%; VI 15-s, 58%). Likewise, MDMA produced only partial substitution for cocaine in both training groups (FR 20, 40%; VI 15-s, 72%). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that the number of sessions required to establish discriminative stimulus control varies with different reinforcement schedules. Nevertheless, training schedules alone do not appear to have significant effects on stimulus generalization between MDMA and cocaine.
Authors: Tatiana Bondareva; Anna Wesołowska; Małgorzata Dukat; Mase Lee; Richard Young; Richard A Glennon Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2005-12-07 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Michael B Gatch; Margaret A Rutledge; Theresa Carbonaro; Michael J Forster Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: David N Velazquez-Martinez; Benita Lizeth Pacheco-Gomez; Ana Laura Toscano-Zapien; Maria Almudena Lopez-Guzman; Daniel Velazquez-Lopez Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 3.558