Qualitative and quantitative differences in the operant runway behavior of rats working for cocaine and heroin reinforcement

https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-3057(93)90298-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Animals were trained to traverse a straight alley for drug reinforcement consisting of five IV injections of either 0.75 mg/kg/injection cocaine (n = 6) or 0.06 mg/kg/injection heroin (n = 6). Testing involved single daily trials during which the latency to leave the start box and the time required to traverse the alley were recorded for each animal. In addition, input from 12 pairs of infrared photocell detector/emittors placed along the length of the alley provided information on the precise location of the animal at 0.1-s intervals throughout the course of each trial. This information was recorded by computer and provided the basis for construction of graphic representations of each trial in the form of spatiotemporal records that revealed the precise route the subject took in getting to the goal box. The experiment revealed substantial differences in the runway behavior of heroin and cocaine animals. While the heroin group exhibited typical patterns of operant performance in that both start latency and goal times decreased gradually over the course of the experiment, cocaine animals were reliably slower than heroin subjects to leave the start box and exhibited a progressive increase in goal times over trials. The latter effect appeared to be a consequence of a “stop and retreat” behavior that was observed in all six cocaine subjects and increased in frequency as the experiment progressed. Because the runway behaviors exhibited here were emitted prior to delivery of the drug reinforcer, they suggest that the motivational state underlying drug-seeking behavior is qualitatively different for heroin- and cocaine-reinforced animals.

References (55)

  • W.B. Mackey et al.

    Neuroleptics block the positive reinforcing effects of amphetamine but not of morphine as measured by place conditioning

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (1985)
  • D.C.S. Roberts et al.

    Extinction and recovery of cocaine self-administration following 6-hydroxydopamine lesions of the nucleus accumbens

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (1980)
  • C. Spyraki et al.

    Cocaine-induced place preference conditioning: Lack of effects of neuroleptics and 6-hydrodopamine lesions

    Brain Res.

    (1982)
  • C. Spyraki et al.

    Intravenous cocaine-induced place preference: Attenuation by haloperidol

    Behav. Brain Res.

    (1987)
  • N. White

    Reward or reinforcement: What's the difference?

    Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.

    (1989)
  • N. White et al.

    The conditioned place preference is affected by two independent reinforcement processes

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (1985)
  • K.A. Zito et al.

    Disruption of cocaine and heroin self-administration following kainic acid lesions of nucleus accumbens

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (1985)
  • J.C. Anthony et al.

    Epidemiologic evidence on cocaine use and panic attacks

    Am. J. Epidemiol.

    (1989)
  • R.J. Beninger et al.

    Pimozide blocks establishment but not expression of amphetamine-produced environmental-specific conditioning

    Science

    (1983)
  • E.E. Brown et al.

    Behavioral and neurochemical interactions between cocaine and buprenorphine: Implications for pharmacotherapy of cocaine abuse

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.

    (1991)
  • B. Carder et al.

    Rats' preference for earned in comparison to free food

    Science

    (1970)
  • G.D. Carr et al.

    Conditioned place preference as a measure of drug reward

  • M.E. Carroll et al.

    Intravenous self-administration of etonitazene, cocaine and phencyclidine in rats during food deprivation and satiation

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.

    (1981)
  • H. deWit et al.

    Reinstatement of cocaine-reinforced responding in the rat

    Psychopharmacology (Berl.)

    (1981)
  • H. deWit et al.

    Drug reinstatement of heroin-reinforced responding in the rat

    Psychopharmacology (Berl.)

    (1983)
  • H. deWit et al.

    Blockade of cocaine reinforcement in rats with the dopamine receptor blocker pimozide but not with the noradrenergic blockers phentolamine or phenoxybenzamine

    Can. J. Psychol.

    (1977)
  • Dworkin, S. I.; Porrino, L. J.; Smith, J. E. Importance of behavioral control in the analysis of ongoing events. NIDA...
  • Cited by (83)

    • Conflation of cocaine seeking and cocaine taking responses in IV self-administration experiments in rats: Methodological and interpretational considerations

      2013, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      One possibility (Katz, 1989; Lynch and Carroll, 2001; Pickens and Thompson, 1968; Rose and Corrigall, 1997; Wilson et al., 1971) is that the titration range is determined by an upper aversive boundary, such that animals maintain brain levels below some ceiling to avoid punishing effects. This hypothesis is certainly plausible given findings that cocaine can produce avoidance behavior (DeVries and Pert, 1998; Ettenberg and Geist, 1991, 1993) as well as conditioned taste aversions (Booth et al., 1977; Goudie et al., 1978) suggesting it has anxiogenic properties. If aversive properties were primarily responsible for the regularity of responding then it would be predicted that rats should choose a frequent small dose over a larger one (Ranaldi et al., 1999).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text