在选择情况下,可卡因和海洛因与非药物强化剂的相互作用是不同的。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-03 DOI:10.1037/pha0000674
Madeline M Beasley, Sarah Amantini, Tommy Gunawan, Alan Silberberg, David N Kearns
{"title":"在选择情况下,可卡因和海洛因与非药物强化剂的相互作用是不同的。","authors":"Madeline M Beasley, Sarah Amantini, Tommy Gunawan, Alan Silberberg, David N Kearns","doi":"10.1037/pha0000674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study used a rat choice model to test how cocaine or heroin economically interacted with two different nondrug reinforcers along the substitute-to-complement continuum. In Experiment 1, the nondrug alternative was the negative reinforcer timeout-from-avoidance (TOA)-that is, rats could press a lever to obtain a period of safety from footshock. One group of rats chose between cocaine and TOA and another group chose between heroin and TOA. The relative prices of the reinforcers were manipulated across phases while controlling for potential income effects. When cocaine was the reinforcer, rats reacted to price changes by increasing their allocation of behavior to the more expensive option, thereby maintaining relatively proportional intake of cocaine and TOA reinforcers across prices, suggesting these reinforcers were complements here. In contrast, when heroin became relatively cheap, rats increased allocation of income to heroin and decreased allocation of income to TOA, suggesting that heroin substituted for safety. Additionally, rats were willing to accept more footshocks when heroin was easily available. In Experiment 2, the nondrug alternative was saccharin, a positive reinforcer. Heroin and saccharin were complements, but there was no consistent effect of price changes on the allocation of behavior between cocaine and saccharin. As a model of the processes that could be involved in human drug use, these results show that drug-taking behavior depends on the type of drug, the type of nondrug alternative available, and the prices of both. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":12089,"journal":{"name":"Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10837314/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cocaine and heroin interact differently with nondrug reinforcers in a choice situation.\",\"authors\":\"Madeline M Beasley, Sarah Amantini, Tommy Gunawan, Alan Silberberg, David N Kearns\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pha0000674\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The present study used a rat choice model to test how cocaine or heroin economically interacted with two different nondrug reinforcers along the substitute-to-complement continuum. In Experiment 1, the nondrug alternative was the negative reinforcer timeout-from-avoidance (TOA)-that is, rats could press a lever to obtain a period of safety from footshock. One group of rats chose between cocaine and TOA and another group chose between heroin and TOA. The relative prices of the reinforcers were manipulated across phases while controlling for potential income effects. When cocaine was the reinforcer, rats reacted to price changes by increasing their allocation of behavior to the more expensive option, thereby maintaining relatively proportional intake of cocaine and TOA reinforcers across prices, suggesting these reinforcers were complements here. In contrast, when heroin became relatively cheap, rats increased allocation of income to heroin and decreased allocation of income to TOA, suggesting that heroin substituted for safety. Additionally, rats were willing to accept more footshocks when heroin was easily available. In Experiment 2, the nondrug alternative was saccharin, a positive reinforcer. Heroin and saccharin were complements, but there was no consistent effect of price changes on the allocation of behavior between cocaine and saccharin. As a model of the processes that could be involved in human drug use, these results show that drug-taking behavior depends on the type of drug, the type of nondrug alternative available, and the prices of both. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10837314/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000674\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000674","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究使用大鼠选择模型来测试可卡因或海洛因如何与两种不同的非药物强化物在替代-互补连续体上相互作用。在实验 1 中,非药物替代物是负强化物 "超时逃避"(TOA)--即大鼠可以按下杠杆来获得一段安全的脚震时间。一组大鼠在可卡因和TOA之间做出选择,另一组大鼠在海洛因和TOA之间做出选择。在控制潜在收入效应的同时,对各阶段强化物的相对价格进行了调整。当可卡因是强化物时,大鼠对价格变化的反应是增加对更昂贵选项的行为分配,从而在不同价格下保持相对比例的可卡因和TOA强化物摄入量,这表明这些强化物在这里是互补的。相反,当海洛因变得相对便宜时,大鼠增加了对海洛因的收入分配,减少了对TOA的收入分配,这表明海洛因替代了安全。此外,当海洛因容易获得时,大鼠愿意接受更多的脚震。在实验 2 中,非药物替代品是糖精,这是一种正强化物。海洛因和糖精是互补的,但价格变化对可卡因和糖精之间的行为分配没有一致的影响。作为人类吸毒过程的一个模型,这些结果表明,吸毒行为取决于毒品的类型、非毒品替代品的类型以及两者的价格。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cocaine and heroin interact differently with nondrug reinforcers in a choice situation.

The present study used a rat choice model to test how cocaine or heroin economically interacted with two different nondrug reinforcers along the substitute-to-complement continuum. In Experiment 1, the nondrug alternative was the negative reinforcer timeout-from-avoidance (TOA)-that is, rats could press a lever to obtain a period of safety from footshock. One group of rats chose between cocaine and TOA and another group chose between heroin and TOA. The relative prices of the reinforcers were manipulated across phases while controlling for potential income effects. When cocaine was the reinforcer, rats reacted to price changes by increasing their allocation of behavior to the more expensive option, thereby maintaining relatively proportional intake of cocaine and TOA reinforcers across prices, suggesting these reinforcers were complements here. In contrast, when heroin became relatively cheap, rats increased allocation of income to heroin and decreased allocation of income to TOA, suggesting that heroin substituted for safety. Additionally, rats were willing to accept more footshocks when heroin was easily available. In Experiment 2, the nondrug alternative was saccharin, a positive reinforcer. Heroin and saccharin were complements, but there was no consistent effect of price changes on the allocation of behavior between cocaine and saccharin. As a model of the processes that could be involved in human drug use, these results show that drug-taking behavior depends on the type of drug, the type of nondrug alternative available, and the prices of both. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
164
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology publishes advances in translational and interdisciplinary research on psychopharmacology, broadly defined, and/or substance abuse.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信