| Literature DB >> 24826360 |
Benjamin Goddard1, Leanne S Son Hing1, Francesco Leri1.
Abstract
Although it is well established that drug conditioned stimuli produce a variety of conditioned responses, it is not known whether such stimuli can also reinforce an arbitrary operant response and thus serve as conditioned reinforcers. Volunteers (n = 39) recruited from a residential treatment center for substance dependence were tested on a task in which presses on computer keys activated images of drugs/drug paraphernalia on a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement. They also completed a personalized craving questionnaire and a personalized Implicit Association Test. A significant bias in responding was found for images of preferred drugs/route of drug administration. Craving, however, was low and the images generated negative evaluative reactions. Two additional studies were performed to ascertain the generalizability of the effects to a different population of drug-using individuals (i.e., students who drink) and to incentive stimuli of a different nature (i.e., sexual). The additional studies partially replicated and extended the central findings of the main study. Therefore, although these data should be considered preliminary in light of small group sizes, it is concluded that cue specificity and availability of the unconditioned stimuli (drugs and sex) plays a role in modulating responding maintained by conditioned reinforcers.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24826360 PMCID: PMC4007739 DOI: 10.1155/2013/394064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Addict ISSN: 2090-7850
Figure 1Examples of images (in black and white) employed in the CRT task.
Figure 2CRT performance in volunteers tested at Stonehenge Therapeutic Community. Mean and sem total number of responses made on computer keys by groups created on the basis of drug of choice ((a) = crack/cocaine, n = 31; (b) = heroin, n = 4; and (c) = alcohol, n = 4). A progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement controlled the relationship between responses on the keys and a 1 sec activation of pictures. Four different keys generated images of cocaine/crack, heroin, marijuana, or alcohol look-alike substances use, and paraphernalia. Two additional keys generated control images of buildings and random colors. The ∗ indicates a significant difference, within group, between responding a specific key and all other keys. In (a) responses to the crack/cocaine and heroin keys were not significantly different from each other.
Figure 3CRT performance of volunteers tested at Stonehenge Therapeutic Community. Mean and sem total number of responses made on computer keys by groups created on the basis of route of administration ((a) = nonintravenous (smoking/snorting), n = 19; (b) = intravenous, n = 16). The ∗ indicates a significant difference, within group, between responding a specific key and all other keys.
Figure 4IAT performance of volunteers tested at Stonehenge Therapeutic Community. Mean and sem reaction times (msec) on test trials comparing “drugs” and “I dislike” versus “drugs” and “I like” in groups created on the basis of drug of choice or preferred route of administration ((a) = crack/cocaine, (b) = heroin, (c) = alcohol, (d) = non intravenous; and (e) = intravenous). The ∗ indicates a significant difference within group.
Groups, sample size, craving score, and performance on the CRT and IAT in subjects tested in the Alcohol study.
| ADS score |
| Craving | CRT | IAT | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crack/cocaine | Heroin | Marijuana | Alcohol | Buildings | Colors | Alcohol/I dislike | Alcohol/I like | |||
| <9 | 22 | 31.6 (4.1) | 13.5 (3.4) | 11.7 (2.8) | 10.4 (2.1) | 22.7 (6.8) | 17.8 (3) | 20.1 (4.1) | 581.8 (19.8)* | 676.1 (27) |
| ≥9 | 27 | 42.8 (4.7) | 14.5 (2.8) | 11.2 (3) | 14.7 (2.8) | 18 (2.4) | 17.1 (2.4) | 23.4 (4.7) | 567.6 (23)* | 640.7 (23.4) |
The first two columns include sample size and scores on the alcohol craving questionnaire in subjects scoring below, or equal to and above, 9 (i.e., threshold of potential problematic drinking) on the ADS. The next six columns include performance on the CRT (mean (sem) responses on each key). The last two columns include performance on the IAT (mean (sem) reaction time in msec). The ∗ indicates a significant difference within group.
Groups, sample size, craving score, and performance on the CRT and IAT in subjects tested in the Sex study.
|
| Craving | CRT | IAT | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male model | Female model | “Junk” food | Snacks | Buildings | Colors | Sex/I dislike | Sex/I like | |||
| Males Involved | 20 | 108 (6.5)* | 7 (3.3) | 429 (84.8)∗# | 70.5 (20.2) | 62.6 (16.6) | 51.3 (15.7) | 75.3 (18.6) | 624 (32.1) | 555.1 (25.1)* |
| Males not involved | 23 | 89 (4.7) | 4.5 (1.1) | 155.3 (46.3)* | 57.3 (13.6) | 69 (20) | 28.3 (8.4) | 51.6 (15.1) | 605.2 (25) | 545.3 (21.3)* |
| Females involved | 36 | 102 (5.4)* | 265.3 (92)∗# | 34.2 (13.6) | 38.5 (9.5) | 64.1 (11.7) | 30.8 (8.8) | 93 (23.7) | 590.2 (16.8) | 543.7 (13.1)* |
| Females not involved | 27 | 81 (6.2) | 165.8 (41)* | 11.7 (3.2) | 22.7 (4.3) | 51.4 (11.3) | 17.6 (3.4) | 48.7 (11.2) | 716.1 (49.3) | 604 (23)* |
The first two columns include sample size and scores on the sexual craving questionnaire. The ∗ indicates a significant difference, within gender, between those involved and those not involved in a relationship. The next six columns include performance on the CRT (mean (sem) responses on each key). The ∗ indicates a significant difference, within group, between responding a specific key and all other keys; the # indicates a significant difference in response on the same key, within gender, between those involved and not involved in a relationship. The last two columns include performance on the IAT (mean (sem) reaction time in msec). The ∗ indicates a significant difference within group.