Self-stimulation aftereffects and runway performance in the rat.

Wetzel, Mary C.

doi:10.1037/h0039844

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is relevant to the question of whether priming is necessary to start behavior motivated toward ESB goals, as suggested by Gallistel (1966), Howarth andDeutsch (1962), andWetzel (1963). Our work shows that this is not the case.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…Olds (1956) found an overnight performance decrement in Ss learning a maze for ESB under massed practice which was not seen when Ss received food reinforcement. Wetzel (1963) observed that Ss given ESB (priming) before each daily trial in a runway had faster speeds than Ss that were not primed. Furthermore, performance of Ss trained under distributed trials was poorer than that of Ss trained under massed trials (Seward, Uyeda, & Olds, 1960;Spear, 1962).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

T-maze learning with one trial per day using brain stimulation reinforcement.

Kornblith¹,

Olds²

1968

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrical stimulation of the brain is an effective reinforcer in simple learning situations when trials are separated by as much as 15 min. In this experiment 13 rats with electrodes in lateral hypothalamus were trained on a position discrimination with trials separated by 24 hr., and subsequently on reversal problems. 11 Ss learned the original discrimination; 6 of 10 /Ss tested completed 1 reversal; and all 6 tested Ss completed a 2nd reversal. 1 S was tested further and completed 7 reversals. Clearly, in the successful cases, reinforcing properties of electrical stimulation were sufficient to induce learning of a discrimination problem even though trials were separated by 24 hr.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 95%

T-maze learning with one trial per day using brain stimulation reinforcement.

Kornblith¹,

Olds²

1968

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Priming has been shown to be an important factor in self-stimulation in rats (Wetzel, 1963), and two explanations of its significance have been advance. The first (Wetzel, 1963) proposes that the need for priming reflects the interaction of rewarding and aversive effects of ESB, the second (Deutsch, 1963), that it is due to the fact that the "drive" for ESB is generated by the ESB itself. Deutsch's proposal suffers from the difficulty that not all Ss require priming (Wetzel, 1963); the present results confirm that in pigeons, also, priming is not a necessary requisite of self-stimulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-stimulation in pigeons: The problem of “priming”

Macphail

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[Rewarding drug injections have several consequences. They establish and "reinforce" learned stimulus associations (Pavlov, 1928), they "stamp in" (Thorndike, 1898) or "reinforce" (Skinner, 1933;Thorndike, 1933) stimulus-response associations and "instrumental" or "operant" response habits, and they "prime" or energize subsequent responding (Wetzel, 1963;Pickens and Harris, 1968). The term "reward" is used here to reflect the sum of the proactive (priming) and retroactive (reinforcing) effects of the injections (Wise, 1989). ]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rewarding Actions of Phencyclidine and Related Drugs in Nucleus Accumbens Shell and Frontal Cortex

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats learned to lever-press when such behavior was reinforced by microinjections of phencyclidine (PCP) directly into the ventromedial (shell) region of nucleus accumbens, indicating that the drug has direct rewarding actions in that region. Separate groups of rats learned to lever-press when reinforced with microinjections of dizoclipine (MK-801) or 3-((+/-)2-carboxypiperazin-4yl)propyl-1-phosphate (CPP), drugs known to block NMDA receptor function but not dopamine uptake, into the same region. Each drug was ineffective or markedly less effective when injected at a slightly more dorsal and lateral site in the core of nucleus accumbens. Self-administration of PCP, MK-801, or CPP directly into nucleus accumbens was not altered by co-infusion of a dose of the dopamine antagonist sulpiride that effectively blocked intracranial self-administration of the dopamine uptake inhibitor nomifensine, suggesting that the rewarding actions of the NMDA receptor antagonists are not dopamine-dependent. Rats also developed lever-pressing habits when PCP, MK-801, and CPP were each microinjected directly into frontal cortex, a region previously associated with the rewarding actions of cocaine but not nomifensine. Thus nucleus accumbens and frontal cortex are each potential substrates for the rewarding properties of PCP and related drugs, and the ability of these drugs to disrupt NMDA receptor function seems sufficient to account for their rewarding actions. When considered with independent evidence, the present results suggest a model of drug reward within which the critical event is inhibition of medium spiny neurons in nucleus accumbens.

show abstract

Self-stimulation aftereffects and runway performance in the rat.

Cited by 24 publications

References 6 publications

T-maze learning with one trial per day using brain stimulation reinforcement.

T-maze learning with one trial per day using brain stimulation reinforcement.

Self-stimulation in pigeons: The problem of “priming”

Rewarding Actions of Phencyclidine and Related Drugs in Nucleus Accumbens Shell and Frontal Cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About