Advertisement

Interpretation of Lesion Effects on Stimulant Self-Administration

  • D. C. S. Roberts
  • K. A. Zito

Abstract

A number of studies have employed the lesion approach to understand the neural mechanisms which underlie drug self-administration behavior. In general, two strategies have been used. One method examines the effect of lesions on acquisition of the self-administration response. Changes in drug reward are inferred by comparing differences in the acquisition rates between lesioned and control animals. Alternately, some have used a within subject design and analyzed the effects of lesions on previously established self-administration behavior. To date, only simple schedules of reward (i.e., fixed ratio or continuous reinforcement) have been used in conjunction with the lesion technique. The difficulty in interpreting changes in drug intake or rate of acquisition is discussed with reference to stimulant self-administration data generated in several laboratories. The importance of characterizing the extent and specificity of the lesion and of choosing the most appropriate postlesion test period is also emphasized.

Keywords

Nucleus Accumbens Ventral Tegmental Area Rewarding Effect Pharmacology Biochemistry Drug Reward 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baxter, B. L., Gluckman, M. I., Stein, L., & Scerni, R. A. (1974). Self-injection of apomorphine in the rat: Positive reinforcement by a dopamine receptor stimulant. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 2, 387–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter, B. L., Gluckman, M. I., & Scerni, R. A. (1976). Apomorphine self-injection is not affected by alpha-methyl paratyrosine treatment: Support for dopaminergic reward. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 4, 611–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedford, J. A., Bailey, L. P., & Wilson, M. C. (1978). Cocaine reinforced progressive ratio performance in the rhesus monkey. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 9, 631–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clavier, R. M., & Fibiger, H. C. (1978). On the role of ascending catecholaminergic projections in intracranial self-stimulation of the substantia nigra. Brain Research, 131, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Creese, I., & Iversen, S. D. (1975). The pharmacological and anatomical substrates of the amphetamine response in the rat. Brain Research, 83, 419–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deneau, G., Yanagita, T., & Seevers, M. H. (1969). Self-administration of psychoactive substances by the monkey. Psychopharmaco1ogia, 16, 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Wit, H., & Wise, R. A. (1977). Blockade of cocaine reinforcement in rats with the dopamine receptor blocker pimozide, but not with noradrenergic blockers phentolamine and phenoxybenzamine. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 31, 195–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fibiger, H. C., Carter, D. A., & Phillips, A. G. (1976). Decreased intracranial self-stimulation after neuroleptics or 6-hydroxydopamine: Evidence for mediation by motor deficits rather than by reduced reward. Psychopharmacology, 47, 21–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffiths, R. R., Findley, J. D., Brady, J. V., Gutcher, K., & Robinson, W. W. (1975). Comparison of progressive-ratio performance maintained by cocaine, methylphenidate and secobarbital. Psychopharmaco1ogy, 43, 81–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffiths, R. R., Bradford, L. D., & Brady, J. V. (1979). Progressive ratio and fixed ratio schedules of cocaine-maintained responding in baboons. Psychopharmacology, 65, 125–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griffiths, R. R., Brady, J. V., & Snell, J. C. (1978). Progressive ratio performance maintained by drug infusions: Comparison of cocaine, diethylpropion, chlor phentermine, and fenfluramine. Psychopharmaco1ogy, 56, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grove, R. N., & Schuster, C. R. (1974). Suppression of cocaine self-administration by extinction and punishment. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 2, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodos, W. (1961). Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science, 134, 943–944.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodos, W., & Kalman, J. (1963). Effects of increment size and reinforcer volume on progressive ratio performance. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 387–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffmeister, F. (1979). Progressive-ratio performance in the rhesus monkey maintained by opiate infusions. Psychopharmaco1ogy, 62, 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iglauer, C., & Woods, J. H. (1974). Concurrent performances: Reinforcement of different doses of intravenous cocaine in the rhesus monkey. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iglauer, C., Llewellyn, M. E., & Woods, J. H. (1976). Concurrent schedules of cocaine injection in rhesus monkeys: Dose variations under independent and non-independent variable interval procedures. Pharmacological Review, 27, 367–383.Google Scholar
  18. Johanson, C. E. (1977). The effect of electric shock on responding maintained by cocaine injections in a choice procedure in the rhesus monkey. Psychopharmaco1ogy, 53, 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johanson, C. E., Balster, R. L., & Bonese, K. (1976). Self-administration of psychomotor stimulant drugs: The effects of unlimited access. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 4, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelly, P. H., Saviour, P., & Iversen, S. D. (1975). Amphetamine and apomorphine responses in the rat following 6-OHDA lesions of the nucleus accumbens septi and corpus striatum. Brain Research, 94, 507–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. König, J. F. R., & Klippel, R. A. (1970). The rat brain: A stereotaxic atlas of the forebrain and lower parts of the brainstem. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  22. Kostrzewa, R. M., & Jacobowitz, D. M. (1974). Pharmacological actions of 6-OHDA. Pharmacological Reviews, 26(3), 199–288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kramer, J. C., Fishman, V. S., & Littlefield, D. C. (1967). Amphetamine abuse: Pattern and effects of high doses taken intravenously. Journal of the American Medical Association, 201, 305–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. LeMoal, M., Stinus, L., & Simon, H. (1979). Increased sensitivity to (+)amphetamine self-administered by rats following meso-cortico-limbic dopamine neurone destruction. Nature, 280, 156–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lyness, W. H., Friedle, N. M., & Moore, K. E. (1979). Destruction of dopaminergic nerve terminal in nucleus accumbens: Effect on d-amphetamine self-administration. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 11, 553–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyness, W. H., Friedle, N. M., & Moore, K. E. (1980). Increased self-administration of d-amphetamine after destruction of 5-hydroxytryptamine neurons. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 12, 937–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pickens, R. (1968). Self-administration of stimulants by rats. International Journal of Addiction, 3, 215–222.Google Scholar
  28. Pickens, R., & Thompson, T. (1968). Cocaine-reinforced behavior in rats: Effects of reinforcement magnitude and fixed ratio size. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 161, 122–129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pycock, C. J., Horton, R. W., & Carter, C. J. (1980). Interactions of 5-hydroxytryptamine and y-aminobutyric acid with dopamine. In P. J. Roberts, G. N. Woodruff, & L. L. Iversen (Eds.), Advances in biochemical psychopharmaco1ogy (Vol. 19, pp. 323–341). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
  30. Roberts, D. C. S., Corcoran, M. E., & Fibiger, H. C. (1977). On the role of ascending catecholamine systems in self-administration of cocaine. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 6, 615–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts, D. C. S., & Koob, G. F. (1982). Disruption of cocaine self-administration following 6-hydroxydopamine lesions of the ventral tegmental area in rats. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 17, 901–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberts, D. C. S., Koob, G. F., Klonoff, P., & Fibiger, H. C. (1980). Extinction and recovery of cocaine self-administration following 6-hydroxydopamine lesions of the nucleus accumbens. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 12, 781–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts, D. C. S., Zis, A. P., & Fibiger, H. C. (1975). Ascending catecholamine pathways and amphetamine-induced locomotor activity: Importance of dopamine and apparent non-in vol vement of norepinephrine. Brain Research, 93, 441–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Singer, S. G., Wallace, M., & Hall, R. (1982). Effects of dopaminergic nucleus accumbens lesions on the acquisition of schedule induced self-injection of nicotine in the rat. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 17, 579–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, S. G., & Davis, W. M. (1974). Punishment of amphetamine and morphine self-administrât ion behavior. Psychological Record, 24, 477–480.Google Scholar
  36. Yanagita, T. (1973). An experimental framework for evaluation of dependence liability in various types of drugs in monkeys. Bulletin on Narcotics, 1, 25–27.Google Scholar
  37. Yokel, R. A., & Wise, R. A. (1975). Increased lever pressing for amphetamine after pimozide in rats: Implication for a dopamine theory of reward. Science, 187, 547–549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yokel, R. A., & Wise, R. A. (1976). Attenuation of intravenous amphetamine reinforcement by central dopamine blockade in rats. Psychopharmaco1ogy, 48, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. C. S. Roberts
    • 1
  • K. A. Zito
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations