Impulsivity predicts individual susceptibility to high levels of alcohol self-administration

Poulos, Constantine X.; Lê, A. D.; Parker, Jayson L.

doi:10.1097/00008877-199512000-00006

Cited by 208 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar type of within-subjects correlation between signtracking and delay discounting has been reported in a study of the effects of lesions of the subthalamic nucleus, which decreased impulsive choice and impaired sign-tracking CR acquisition (Winstanley, et al, 2005). Individual differences in impulsivity may also be substantial and predictive of between-subjects differences in alcohol drinking (Poulos et al, 1995(Poulos et al, , 1998. Poulos and his associates have shown that rats, exhibiting intolerance to reward delay by choosing small immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards, subsequently consumed more alcohol than rats that were less delay-intolerant.…”

Section: Vulnerability To Impulsivitysupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Impulsivity is related to drug addiction by studies reporting that rats that are intolerant of reward delay subsequently acquire cocaine self-administration more rapidly and at lower doses (Perry et al, 2005) and also self-administer more alcohol (Poulos et al, 1995(Poulos et al, , 1998 than do delaytolerant rats (for review, see Olmstead, 2006). In addition, Lewis rats, as compared to Fischer rats, exhibit more intolerance to reward delay (Anderson and Woolverton, 2005) and more readily self-administer drugs of abuse, including cocaine (Kosten et al, 1997;Haile and Kosten, 2001), morphine (Ambrosio et al, 1995;Martin et al, 1999), and alcohol (Suzuki et al, 1988).…”

Section: Vulnerability To Impulsivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse

Tomie

Grimes

Pohorecky

2008

Brain Research Reviews

150

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug abuse researchers have noted striking similarities between behaviors elicited by Pavlovian signtracking procedures and prominent symptoms of drug abuse. In Pavlovian sign-tracking procedures, repeated paired presentations of a small object (conditioned stimulus, CS) with a reward (unconditioned stimulus, US) elicits a conditioned response (CR) that typically consists of approaching the CS, contacting the CS, and expressing consummatory responses at the CS. Signtracking CR performance is poorly controlled and exhibits spontaneous recovery and long-term retention, effects that resemble relapse. Sign-tracking resembles psychomotor activation, a syndrome of behavioral responses evoked by addictive drugs, and the effects of sign-tracking on corticosterone levels and activation of dopamine pathways resemble the neurobiological effects of abused drugs. Finally, the neurobiological profile of individuals susceptible to sign-tracking resembles the pathophysiological profile of vulnerability to drug abuse, and vulnerability to sign-tracking predicts vulnerability to impulsive responding and alcohol self-administration. Implications of sign-tracking for models of drug addiction are considered.

show abstract

Section: Vulnerability To Impulsivitysupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Vulnerability To Impulsivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse

Tomie

Grimes

Pohorecky

2008

Brain Research Reviews

150

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, identifying specific neurochemical differences between rat strains and how they impact behavior may yield information useful to the development of pharmacological interventions to treat/prevent impulse-control disorders. Genetic factors in mice and rats have already been implicated in the correlation between performance on impulsivity tasks and drug (alcohol) self-administration (Logue et al, 1998;Poulos et al, 1995), but certainly more research is warranted to increase understanding of such relations, including any differential neurochemical contributions and roles of potential pharmacotherapeutic agents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of clomipramine on self-control choice in Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

Anderson

Woolverton

2005

Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rates of delay discounting (impulsive choice) have been shown to vary among individuals, particularly people who abuse drugs relative to those who do not, but factors that may contribute to these differences have not been identified. To explore a role for possible genetic and neurochemical determinants, Lewis (n=8) and Fischer 344 (n=8) rats were allowed to choose between one food pellet delivered immediately and three food pellets delivered after increasing delays. The delays to the large reinforcer (0, 10, 20, 40, 60 s) were increased across five blocks of trials in daily experimental sessions. For both groups of rats, choice for the larger reinforcer decreased as the delay to presentation increased. However, the Lewis rats were more likely to choose the smaller, immediate reinforcer earlier in the session, i.e., at shorter large-reinforcer delays, than the Fisher 344 rats. This difference in choice was statistically significant. Repeated administration of 3.0 mg/kg, i.p. clomipramine (mean of last five sessions) did not significantly alter choice, relative to baseline, for either strain. The present findings suggest that differences in delay discounting/impulsive choice may involve genetic, e.g., neurochemical, differences.

show abstract

“…In rodents, impulsive choice predicts acquisition of cocaine self-administration [62,65] and cocaine-primed reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior [65]. Impulsive choice also predicts greater alcohol consumption in a two-bottle choice test [70], more self-administered nicotine infusions under a progressive ratio schedule [23], and greater resistance to extinction of nicotine-seeking behavior and cue-induced reinstatement of nicotine-seeking [23]. These preclinical results indicate that individual differences in impulsive choice and drug abuse vulnerability are linked biologically.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impulsive choice and environmental enrichment: Effects of d-amphetamine and methylphenidate

Perry

Stairs

Bardo

2008

Behavioural Brain Research

123

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in impulsive choice and rearing in differential environments are factors that predict vulnerability to drug abuse. The present study determined if rearing influences impulsive choice, and if d-amphetamine or methylphenidate alters impulsive choice in differentially-reared rats. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were raised from 21 days of age in either an enriched condition (EC) or an isolated condition (IC) and were tested as young adults on an adjusting delay task. In this task, two levers were available and a response on one lever yielded one 45 mg food pellet immediately, whereas a response on the other yielded three pellets after an adjusting delay. The delay was initially set at 6 sec, and it decreased or increased by 1 sec following responses on the immediate or delayed levers, respectively. A mean adjusted delay (MAD) was calculated upon completion of each daily session, and it served as the quantitative measure of impulsivity. Once MADs stabilized, rats were injected with saline, d-amphetamine (0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg, s.c.), or methylphenidate (2.5, 5.0, or 10.0 mg/kg, s.c.) 15 min prior to adjusting delay sessions. EC rats had higher baseline MADs (were less impulsive) than IC rats. Additionally, administration of d-amphetamine, but not methylphenidate, dose-dependently increased impulsive choice (decreased MADs) in EC rats. In IC rats, d-amphetamine and methylphenidate dose-dependently decreased impulsivity (increased MADs). These results indicate that rearing environment influences impulsive choice and moderates the effect of psychostimulants on impulsive choice. Specifically, psychostimulants may decrease environment-dependent impulsive choice in individuals with high levels of impulsivity (e.g., those with ADHD), whereas they may increase impulsive choice in individuals with low levels of impulsivity.

show abstract

Impulsivity predicts individual susceptibility to high levels of alcohol self-administration

Cited by 208 publications

References 0 publications

Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse

Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse

Effects of clomipramine on self-control choice in Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

Impulsive choice and environmental enrichment: Effects of d-amphetamine and methylphenidate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About