Performance and subjective effects of diazepam and d-amphetamine in high and low sensation seekers

Kelly, Thomas C.; Delzer, Timothy A.; Martin, Catherine A.; Harrington, Nancy Grant; Hays, Lon R.; Bardo, Michael T.

doi:10.1097/fbp.0b013e3283305e8d

Cited by 25 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with our previous clinical laboratory studies (i.e., Kelly et al, 2006, 2009; Stoops et al, 2007), the results of the current study demonstrate that individual differences in ZKPQ impulsive sensation-seeking scores are associated with increased sensitivity to the reinforcing effects (i.e., capsules earned on a progressive ratio task) and subjective (i.e., ‘Good Effect’) effects of d-amphetamine. These data extend the results of previous studies by demonstrating that this association is most closely associated with the SS dimension of the impulsive sensation-seeking scale and not related to the Imp dimension.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Based on previous research (e.g. Fillmore et al 2009; Kelly et al 2006, 2009; Stoops et al 2007) indicating that the overall ImpSS subscale of the ZKPQ is positively correlated with drug taking behavior and subjective effects, it was hypothesized that SS or Imp would be positively associated with drug taking behavior and subjective drug effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual differences in the reinforcing and subjective effects of d-amphetamine: Dimensions of impulsivity.

Harvanko¹,

Martin²,

Lile

et al. 2016

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown a relationship between impulsive personality and the subjective and reinforcing effects of d-amphetamine. Impulsive personality, however, is comprised of multiple dimensions. The association between different dimensions of impulsive personality and the subjective and reinforcing effects of d-amphetamine is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the independent contributions of the “sensation-seeking” and “impulsivity” dimensions of the impulsive sensation-seeking subscale of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ) to the subjective and reinforcing effects of d-amphetamine. Forty healthy emerging adults varying in scores on the sensation-seeking and impulsivity dimensions of the ZKPQ participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study comprised of four two-day blocks. Each two-day block consisted of a sample day and self-administration day. Subjective effects and physiological measurements were taken prior to, and hourly for 3 h following, dose administration. On sample days participants were given eight capsules containing 0, 1, or 2 mg d-amphetamine. On self-administration days participants were able to earn capsules containing the same dose of d-amphetamine that was administered on the previous sample day by responding on a Modified Progressive Ratio Task. The “sensation-seeking” dimension was positively associated with drug taking on the Modified Progressive Ratio Task, subjective effects (e.g. ‘good effect’), and heart rate. However, no clear relationship between the “impulsivity” dimension and outcome measures was observed. In conclusion, these data suggest that the narrow sensation-seeking dimension of impulsive sensation-seeking is associated with initial drug liking and drug taking behavior and may be a key predictor of drug use initiation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in the reinforcing and subjective effects of d-amphetamine: Dimensions of impulsivity.

Harvanko¹,

Martin²,

Lile

et al. 2016

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present findings add to a growing body of human behavioral pharmacology research that suggests individuals differ in their sensitivity to acute drug effects based on psychiatric disorder, personality dimensions (e.g., sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk taking), age, genotype, and gender (Helmus et al, 2005; Hutchison et al, 1999; Kelly et al, 2006, 2009; Kreek et al, 2005; Laviola et al, 1999; Lott et al, 2005; Stoops et al, 2007a; Vansickel et al, 2010). Variations in the above factors have been implicated in increased vulnerability to drug use, abuse, addiction, and relapse.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Amphetamine Self-Administration in Light and Moderate Drinkers

Stanley

Poole

Stoops

et al. 2010

Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Light and moderate drinkers respond differently to the effects of abused drugs, including stimulants such as amphetamine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether light and moderate drinkers differ in their sensitivity to the reinforcing and subjective effects of d-amphetamine. We hypothesized that moderate drinkers (i.e., participants that reported consuming at least seven alcohol-containing beverages per week) would be more sensitive to the reinforcing and positive subject-rated effects of d-amphetamine than light drinkers. Methods Data from four studies that employed similar d-amphetamine self-administration procedures and subject-rated drug-effect measures were included in the analysis. Light (N=17) and moderate (N=16) drinkers sampled placebo, low (8-10 mg) and high (16-20 mg) doses of oral d-amphetamine administered in eight (8) capsules. Following sampling sessions, participants worked for a maximum of eight capsules, each containing 12.5% of the previously sampled dose, on a modified progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement. Results Both active doses of d-amphetamine functioned as a reinforcer in the moderate drinkers while only the high dose did so in the light drinkers. The moderate drinkers worked for significantly more capsules that contained the high dose of d-amphetamine than did the light drinkers. d-Amphetamine produced prototypical stimulant-like subjective effects (e.g. dose-dependent increases in ratings of Good Effects; Like Drug and Willing to Take Again). Moderate drinkers reported significantly greater subjective effects than the light drinkers. Conclusion These results are consistent with those from previous laboratory experiments and suggest that moderate alcohol consumption may increase vulnerability to the abuse-related effects of stimulants.

show abstract

“…In addition, experimental assessment of the abuse potential of diazepam has demonstrated that individual differences such as sensation seeking status and alcohol use history can increase the likelihood that diazepam will produce “positive” subject-rated effects or be self-administered in the laboratory (de Wit et al, 1986; Kelly et al, 2009). Similarly, cannabis use history has been associated with a greater propensity to diazepam self-administration (Chutuape and de Wit, 1994), so it might have been predicted that diazepam would have produced robust positive subject-rated effects in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separate and combined effects of the GABAA positive allosteric modulator diazepam and Δ9-THC in humans discriminating Δ9-THC

Lile

Kelly

Hays

2014

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Our previous research suggested the involvement γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), in particular the GABAB receptor subtype, in the interoceptive effects of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC). The aim of the present study was to determine the potential involvement of the GABAA receptor subtype by assessing the separate and combined effects of the GABAA positive allosteric modulator diazepam and Δ9-THC using pharmacologically selective drug-discrimination procedures. Methods Ten cannabis users learned to discriminate 30 mg oral Δ9-THC from placebo and then received diazepam (5 and 10 mg), Δ9-THC (5, 15 and 30 mg) and placebo, alone and in combination. Self-report, task performance and physiological measures were also collected. Results Δ9-THC functioned as a discriminative stimulus, produced subjective effects typically associated with cannabinoids (e.g., High, Stoned, Like Drug) and elevated heart rate. Diazepam alone impaired performance on psychomotor performance tasks and increased ratings on a limited number of self-report questionnaire items (e.g., Any Effect, Sedated), but did not substitute for the Δ9-THC discriminative stimulus or alter the Δ9-THC discrimination dose-response function. Similarly, diazepam had limited impact on the other behavioral effects of Δ9-THC. Conclusions These results suggest that the GABAA receptor subtype has minimal involvement in the interoceptive effects of Δ9-THC, and by extension cannabis, in humans.

show abstract

Performance and subjective effects of diazepam and d-amphetamine in high and low sensation seekers

Cited by 25 publications

References 53 publications

Individual differences in the reinforcing and subjective effects of d-amphetamine: Dimensions of impulsivity.

Individual differences in the reinforcing and subjective effects of d-amphetamine: Dimensions of impulsivity.

Amphetamine Self-Administration in Light and Moderate Drinkers

Separate and combined effects of the GABAA positive allosteric modulator diazepam and Δ9-THC in humans discriminating Δ9-THC

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About