Skip to main content

Intermittent Adaptation: A Mathematical Model of Drug Tolerance, Dependence and Addiction

  • Chapter
Computational Neuroscience of Drug Addiction

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Computational Neuroscience ((NEUROSCI,volume 10))

Abstract

A model of drug tolerance, dependence and addiction is presented. The model is essentially much more complex than the commonly used model of homeostasis, which is demonstrated to fail in describing tolerance development to repeated drug administrations. The model assumes the development of tolerance to a repeatedly administered drug to be the result of a process of intermittently developing adaptation. The oral detection and analysis of endogenous substances is proposed to be the primary stimulus triggering the adaptation process. Anticipation and environmental cues are considered secondary stimuli, becoming primary only in dependence and addiction or when the drug administration bypasses the natural—oral—route, as is the case when drugs are administered intravenously. The model considers adaptation to the effect of a drug and adaptation to the interval between drug taking to be autonomously functioning adaptation processes. Simulations with the mathematical model demonstrate the model’s behaviour to be consistent with important characteristics of the development of tolerance to repeatedly administered drugs: the gradual decrease in drug effect when tolerance develops, the high sensitivity to small changes in drug dose, the rebound phenomenon and the large reactions following withdrawal in dependence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This downward shift in the functioning of the process represents the drug induced change in the functioning of processes involved in the drug effect. The shift depends mainly on the functioning of the slow regulator which can have a long time constant (see Sect. 2.4.2). As a result, the shift may remain a long time after a drug is withdrawn. This has important consequences as was first pointed out in a previous publication (Peper et al. 1987): The negative shift of the process output on drug withdrawal signifies the occurrence of antagonistic symptoms with respect to the drug effect and these are consequently in the “direction” of the disorder the drug was intended to counteract (Kalant et al. 1971). This implies […] a worsening of the disorder of the patient after termination of drug treatment. Apparently, for the body, adaptation to a medicine means a shift in its functioning in the direction of the disease.

  2. 2.

    The bend at the bottom of the dose–response curve is largely caused by the logarithmic scale. In a linear process, a linear change in dose will cause a linear change in drug effect, as long as there is no tolerance development (curve (d)). With a linear scale, distortion of the curve due to tolerance development is easily noticed. However, as the dose–response curve is commonly presented using a logarithmic dose scale, this has also been adopted here. The saturation in the top of the dose–response curve in Fig. 2.15 is the natural maximal activity of the processes involved. This effect has been left out in the simulation of Fig. 2.16 as it has no relevance to the present subject.

References

  • Ahmed SH, Kenny PJ, Koob GF, Markou A (2002) Neurobiological evidence for hedonic allostasis associated with escalating cocaine use. Nat Neurosci 5(7):625–626

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed SH, Koob GF (2005) Transition to drug addiction: a negative reinforcement model based on an allostatic decrease in reward function. Psychopharmacology 180(3):473–490

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ali RE, Rattan SIS (2006) Curcumin’s biphasic hormetic response on proteasome activity and heat shock protein synthesis in human keratinocytes. Ann NY Acad Sci 1067:394–399

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baker TB, Tiffany ST (1985) Morphine tolerance as habituation. Psychol Rev 92:78–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bell D, Griffin AWJ (eds) (1969) Modern control theory and computing. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard C (1878) Leçons sur les Phénomènes de la Vie Communs aux Animaux et aux Végétaux. Bailliére et Fils, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2001) The frequency of U-shaped dose–responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicol Sci 62:330–338

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2003) A general classification of U-shaped dose–response relationships in toxicology and their mechanistic foundations. Hum Exp Toxicol 17:353–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon WB (1929) Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiol Rev 9:399–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Conolly RB, Lutz WK (2004) Nonmonotonic dose–response relationships: mechanistic basis, kinetic modeling, and implications for risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 77:151–157

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch R (1974) Conditioned hypoglycemia: a mechanism for saccharid-induced sensitivity to insulin in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol 86:350–358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin BR (1993) Learning and physiological regulation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Everitt BJ, Wolf ME (2002) Psychomotor stimulant addiction: a neural systems perspective. J Neurosci 22:3312–3320

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore MT, Vogel-Sprott M (1999) An alcohol model of impaired inhibitory control and its treatment in humans. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 7:49–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein A, Goldstein DB (1968) Enzyme expansion theory of drug tolerance and physical dependence. In: Wikler A (ed) The addictive states. Research publications association for research nervous and mental disease, vol 46. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, p 265

    Google Scholar 

  • Grattan-Miscio K, Vogel-Sprott M (2005) Effects of alcohol and performance incentives on immediate working memory. Psychopharmacology 81:188–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grill HJ, Berridge KC, Ganster DJ (1984) Oral glucose is the prime elicitor of preabsorptive insulin secretion. Am J Physiol 246:R88–R95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heding LG, Munkgaard Rasmussen S (1975) Human C-peptide in normal and diabetic subjects. Diabetologia 11:201–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heisler LK, Tecott LH (2000) A paradoxical locomotor response in serotonin 5-HT2C receptor mutant mice. J Neurosci 20:RC71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe JH, Sharpless SK (1968) Pharmacological denervation super sensitivity in the central nervous system: a theory of physical dependence. In: Wikler A (ed) The addictive states. Research publications association for research nervous and mental disease, vol 46. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, p 226

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalant H, LeBlanc AE, Gibbins RJ (1971) Tolerance to and dependence on, some non-opiate psychotropic drugs. Pharmacol Rev 23(3):135–191

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel ER (1976) Cellular basis of behaviour; an introduction to behavioral neurobiology. Freeman and Comp, San Fransisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Koob GF, Le Moal M (2001) Drug addiction, dysregulation of reward, and allostasis. Neuropsychopharmacology 24:97–129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koshland DE (1977) A response regulator model in a simple sensory system. Science 196:1055–1063

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Loewy AD, Haxhiu MA (1993) CNS cell groups projecting to pancreatic parasympathetic preganglionic neurons. Brain Res 620:323–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin WR (1968) A homeostatic and redundancy theory of tolerance to and dependence on narcotic analgesics. In: Wikler A (ed) The addictive states. Research publications association for research nervous and mental disease, vol 46. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, p 206

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller CS (2000) Mechanisms of action of addictive stimuli; toxicant-induced loss of tolerance. Addiction 96(1):115–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirel RD, Ginsberg-Fellner F, Horwitz DL, Rayfield EJ (1980) C-peptide reserve in insulin-dependent diabetes: Comparative responses to glucose, glucagon and tabutamide. Diabetologia 19:183–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell D, Snellen JW, Atkins AR (1970) Thermoregulation during fever: change of set-point or change of gain. Pflügers Arch 321:393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peper A, Grimbergen CA, Kraal JW, Engelbart JH (1987) An approach to the modelling of the tolerance mechanism in the drug effect. Part I: The drug effect as a disturbance of regulations. J Theor Biol 127:413–426

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peper A, Grimbergen CA, Kraal JW, Engelbart JH (1988) An approach to the modelling of the tolerance mechanism in the drug effect. Part II: On the implications of compensatory regulations. J Theor Biol 132:29–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peper A, Grimbergen CA et al. (1998) A mathematical model of the hsp70 regulation in the cell. Int J Hypertherm 14(1):97–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peper A, Grimbergen CA (1999) Preliminary results of simulations with an improved mathematical model of drug tolerance. J Theor Biol 199:119–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peper A (2004a) A theory of drug tolerance and dependence I: A conceptual analysis. J Theor Biol 229:477–490

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peper A (2004b) A theory of drug tolerance and dependence II: The mathematical model. J Theor Biol 229:491–500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peper A (2009a) Aspects of the relationship between drug dose and drug effect. Dose Response 7(2):172–192

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peper A (2009b) Intermittent adaptation. A theory of drug tolerance, dependence and addiction. Pharmacopsychiatry 42(Suppl 1):S129–S143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poulos CX, Cappell H (1991) Homeostatic theory of drug tolerance: a general model of physiological adaptation. Psychol Rev 98:390–408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay DS, Woods SC (1997) Biological consequences of drug administration: implications for acute and chronic tolerance. Psychol Rev 104:170–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In: Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds) Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 64–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitisation theory of addiction. Brains Res Rev 18:247–291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schulkin J (2003) Rethinking homeostasis: allostatic regulation in physiology and pathophysiology. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S (1975) Evidence from rats that morphine tolerance is a learned response. J Comp Physiol Psychol 89:498–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S (1996) Learning and homeostasis. Integr Physiol Behav Sci 31(2):189

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S (1999) Drug anticipation and drug addiction. The 1998 H. David Archibald lecture. Addiction 94(8):1113–1124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S, Allan LG (1998) Learning and homeostasis: drug addiction and the McCollough effect. Psychol Bull 124(2):230–239

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S, Hinson RE, Krank MD, McCully J (1982) Heroin “overdose” death: contribution of drug-associated environmental cues. Science 216:436–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder SH (1977) Opiate receptors and internal opiates. Sci Am 236:44–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon RL, Corbit JD (1973) An opponent-process theory of motivation II: Cigarette addiction. J Abnorm Psychol 81:158–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon RL, Corbit JD (1974) An opponent-process theory of motivation. I: Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychol Rev 81:119–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon RL (1977) An opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: the affective dynamics of addiction. In: Maser JD, Seligman MEP (eds) Psychopathology: experimental models. Freeman, San Francisco, pp 66–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon RL (1980) The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: the costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. Am Psychol 35:691–712

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steffens AB (1976) Influence of the oral cavity on insulin release in the rat. Am J Physiol 230:1411–1415

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sterling P, Eyer J (1988) Allostasis: a new paradigm to explain arousal pathology. In: Fisher S, Reason J (eds) Handbook of life stress, cognition and health. Wiley, New York, pp 629–649

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling P (2004) Principles of allostasis: optimal design, predictive regulation, pathophysiology and rational therapeutics. In: Schulkin J (ed) Allostasis homeostasis and the costs of adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe WH (1956) Learning and instinct in animals. Methuen and Co, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiffany ST, Baker TB (1981) Morphine tolerance in rats: Congruence with a Pavlovian paradigm. J Comp Physiol Psychol 95:747–762

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tiffany ST, Maude-Griffin PM (1988) Tolerance to morphine in the rat: associative and nonassociative effects. Behav Neurosci 102(4):534–543

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toates FM (1979) Homeostasis and drinking. Behav Brain Sci 2:95–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verveen AA (1978) Silent endocrine tumors. A steady-state analysis of the effects of changes in cell number for biological feedback systems. Biol Cybern 31:49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verveen AA (1983) Theory of diseases of steady-state proportional control systems. Biol Cybern 47:25

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffi L (1949) Zu einer allgemeinen Systemlehre. Biol Gen 195:114–129

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffi L (1950) An outline of general systems theory. Br J Philos Sci 1:139–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner AR (1978) Expectancies and the primary of STM. In: Hulse S, Fowler H, Honig WK (eds) Cognitive processes in animal behaviour. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 177–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner AR (1981) SOP: a model of automatic memory processing in animal behaviour. In: Spear NE, Miller RR (eds) Habituation: perspectives from child development, animal behaviour and neurophysiology. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegant FAC, Spieker N, van Wijk R (1998) Stressor-specific enhancement of hsp induction by low doses of stressors in conditions of self- and cross-sensitisation. Toxicology 127(1–3):107–119

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener N (1948) Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilens TE, Biederman J, Kwon A, Chase R et al. (2003) A systematic chart review of the nature of psychiatric adverse events in children and adolescents treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 13(2):143–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank C.A. Grimbergen, R. Jonges, J. Habraken and I. Jans for their critical support and valuable suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abraham Peper .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

The model is a non-linear, learning feedback system, fully satisfying control theoretical principles. It accepts any form of the stimulus—the drug intake—and describes how the physiological processes involved affect the distribution of the drug through the body and the stability of the regulation loop. The model assumes the development of tolerance to a repeatedly administered drug to be the result of a regulated adaptive process; adaptation to the effect of a drug and adaptation to the interval between drug taking are considered autonomous tolerance processes.

The mathematical model is derived in detail in Peper (2004b). In the present appendix the equations are summarised. A block diagram of the model is shown in Fig. 2.25. For the sake of brevity, the index ‘(t)’ in time signals is omitted.

Fig. 2.25
figure 25

Block diagram of the mathematical model

1.1 A.1 The Digestive Tract

The digestive system plays no role in the regulation loop. Drug transport through the digestive tract is modeled as a first order function:

$$ S_{\mathrm{digest}} = \int_{0}^{t} \mathit{drug}\,dt- \frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{digest}}}\int_{0}^{t}S_{\mathrm{digest}}\,dt$$
(1)

The input to the block is the drug administration, drug. The input signal is integrated to obtain the drug level when it enters the bloodstream, the output of the block S digest. A fraction 1/T digest of the output signal is subtracted from the input to account for the distribution of the drug in the digestive tract. T digest is the time constant of this process.

1.2 A.2 The Bloodstream

After digestion, the drug enters the bloodstream where it is dispersed. In the present configuration of the model, the drug and the substance produced by the process are assumed to be identical in composition and consequently add in the bloodstream. The amount of the total substance in the bloodstream will be reduced by the body’s metabolism. The processes are modeled by a first order function:

$$ S_{\mathrm{blood}} = \int_{0}^{t} (S_{\mathrm{process}} + S_{\mathrm{digest}})\,dt -\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{blood}}}\int_{0}^{t} S_{\mathrm{blood}}\, dt$$
(2)

The input signals—the drug as it moves from the digestive tract into the bloodstream, S digest, and the substance produced by the process, S process—are added and integrated, yielding the output of the block, the blood drug level S blood. To account for the body’s metabolism, a fraction 1/T blood of the output signal is subtracted from the input.

1.3 A.3 The Adaptive Regulator

The input signals of the adaptive regulator are the drug administration and the sensor signal, processed by the loop control block. The sensor signal provides the information about the drug effect. The output of the adaptive regulator counteracts the disturbance by lowering the process output during the drug’s presence. The adaptive regulator comprises a fast and a slow regulator. The fast regulator consists of the blocks “drug regulator”, “interval regulator” and “model estimation”. The slow regulator suppresses the slow changes in the input signal, its output being the average of the input signal. As the fast regulator reacts to fast changes only, the output of the slow regulator is subtracted from its input. It is assumed that the body more or less separately develops tolerance to the drug’s presence and to the intervals between drug administrations. The fast regulator therefore consists of a regulator which provides the adaptation to the drug’s direct effect and a regulator which provides adaptation to the interval between drug taking. The output of the complete adaptive regulator is a combination of signals from its individual components.

The model assumes the body to anticipate the effect of a drug to which it has developed tolerance. This implies that the body has made an estimate of what is going to happen when the drug is administered: it has a model of it. The organism has also made an estimate of the magnitude of the drug effect at the given state of tolerance development. These two entities are the main factors determining the functioning of the fast regulator: the level of tolerance development and the course of the drug effect.

1.3.1 A.3.1 The Fast Regulator

The fast regulator consists of the blocks “drug regulator”, “interval regulator” and “model estimation” (Fig. 2.26). The input signal of the drug regulator S d is multiplied by M drug, which represents the course of the drug level in the input signal over time. This signal is integrated (1/s) with a time constant T drug, yielding its average. The resulting value is a slowly rising signal, L drug. Multiplying L drug by M drug yields the output signal S drug.

Fig. 2.26
figure 26

Block diagram of the adaptive regulator

Because of the slow response of the circuit, changes in the input magnitude will be followed only slowly by the output. The speed of change of the output magnitude—representing the slow development of tolerance by the organism—depends on the frequency of occurrence of the drug signal and the amplification of the feedback loop: 1/T drug. The relation between the signals is

$$ S_{\mathrm{drug}} = M_{\mathrm{drug}}\cdot\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{drug}}}\int_{0}^{t} (S_{d} -S_{\mathrm{drug}}) \cdot M_{\mathrm{drug}}\,dt$$
(3)

and

$$ S_{\mathrm{drug}} = L_{\mathrm{drug}} \cdot M_{\mathrm{drug}}$$
(4)

The input to the interval regulator is obtained when the output signal of the drug regulator—S drug—is subtracted from its top value L drug. The model of the interval is M int.

The relation between the signals in the fast regulator describing the drug’s presence is then

$$ \begin{aligned}[b]S_{\mathrm{drug}} &= M_{\mathrm{drug}}\cdot\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{drug}}}\int_{0}^{t} (S_{d} -S_{\mathrm{drug}}) \cdot M_{\mathrm{drug}}\,dt\\&\quad {}- M_{\mathrm{drug}}\cdot\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{decline}}}\int_{0}^{t}\frac{S_{\mathrm{drug}}}{M_{\mathrm{drug}}} \,dt\end{aligned}$$
(5)

and

$$ S_{\mathrm{drug}} = L_{\mathrm{drug}} \cdot M_{\mathrm{drug}}$$
(6)

Similarly, the equation describing the interval regulator is

$$ \begin{aligned}[b]S_{\mathrm{int}} &= M_{\mathrm{int}} \cdot\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{int}}}\int_{0}^{t} (L_{\mathrm{drug}} -S_{\mathrm{drug}} - S_{\mathrm{int}}) \cdot M_{\mathrm{int}}\,dt\\&\quad {} - M_{\mathrm{int}}\cdot\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{decline}}}\int_{0}^{t} \frac{S_{\mathrm{int}}}{M_{\mathrm{int}}}\,dt\end{aligned}$$
(7)

and

$$ S_{\mathrm{int}} = L_{\mathrm{int}} \cdot M_{\mathrm{int}}$$
(8)

The output of the interval regulator is S int. The output signal of the total fast regulator is obtained by subtracting the interval signal from the top level of the drug signal:

$$ S_{\mathrm{out}} = L_{\mathrm{drug}} - S_{\mathrm{int}}$$
(9)

Figure 2.27 shows the implementation of the fast regulator in the mathematical simulation program Simulink (see Peper 2004b).

Fig. 2.27
figure 27

Fast regulator implemented in Simulink

1.3.2 A.3.2 Estimation of the Drug Effect in the Adaptive Regulator

As the duration of the drug administration is relatively short in most cases, it may be represented by a short pulse. The model of the course of the drug concentration when it enters the bloodstream—M drug—is then computed by calculating the effect of a pulse with a magnitude of 1 on the digestive tract’s transfer function. The input of the interval is acquired when the signal “drug” is subtracted from its top value of 1. Multiplying this signal by the transfer of the digestive tract yields the model of the interval M int:

$$ M_{\mathrm{drug}} = \int_{0}^{t} \mathit{drug} \,dt- \frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{digest}}}\int_{0}^{t}M_{\mathrm{drug}} \,dt$$
(10)

and

$$ M_{\mathrm{int}} = \int_{0}^{t} (1 - \mathit{drug})\,dt- \frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{digest}}}\int_{0}^{t}M_{\mathrm{int}} \,dt$$
(11)

T digest is the time constant of the digestive system.

1.3.3 A.3.3 The Slow Regulator

The slow regulator models the long term adaptation to the drug effect. In the tolerant state, the slow adaptation causes the magnitude of the negative reaction after the drug effect to depend on the interval between drug administrations: an infrequently taken drug has a small effect during the interval, while a frequently taken drug causes a large rebound. The slow regulator counteracts the disturbance by lowering the level of the process by the average of the drug effect. Its input signal—the sensor signal, processed by the loop control block—provides the information about the drug effect. The average of the input signal is obtained by a low pass filter with a time constant T slow:

$$ S_{\mathrm{slow}} = \int_{0}^{t} S_{\mathrm{contr}} \,dt- \frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{slow}}}\int_{0}^{t}S_{\mathrm{slow}} \,dt$$
(12)

1.4 A.4 The Process

The model does not incorporate the characteristics of the process and the process regulator. In a specific model of drug tolerance where the process is included, the effect of the process transfer on loop stability has to be controlled by the loop control block.

1.5 A.5 Loop Control

A loop control is an essential element in any regulated system. It incorporates the open loop amplification, which determines the accuracy of the regulation, and it provides the necessary conditions for stable operation of the negative feedback system. For stable operation, the regulation loop has to contain compensation for the effect of superfluous time constants: their effect on the signals in the loop has to be counteracted by circuits with an inverse effect. In the present form of the model, only the effect of the bloodstream on the regulation loop is counteracted as the transfer of the process and its regulator and the transfer function of the sensor are set at unity. The relation between the input and the output of the loop control is

$$ S_{\mathrm{sens}} = \int_{0}^{t} S_{\mathrm{contr}} \,dt - \frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{blood}}}\int_{0}^{t}S_{\mathrm{sens}} \,dt$$
(13)

1.6 A.6 The Sensor

The sensor transforms the chemical signal S blood—the blood drug level—into the signal S sense. In the present model, this transformation is assumed to be linear and is set at 1. In specific models of physiological processes, this complex mechanism can be described more accurately. Stable operation then requires that the effect of its transfer on loop stability is controlled by the loop control block.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peper, A. (2012). Intermittent Adaptation: A Mathematical Model of Drug Tolerance, Dependence and Addiction. In: Gutkin, B., Ahmed, S. (eds) Computational Neuroscience of Drug Addiction. Springer Series in Computational Neuroscience, vol 10. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0751-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics