1980
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-67538-6_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Testing Antipsychotic Drug Effects with Operant Behavioral Techniques

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2000
2000

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since the mesolimbic DA system is thought to form an important component of the reward systems of the brain, it has been suggested that the increase in mesolimbic DA secretion evoked by nicotine may account for the rewarding properties of the drug which mediate it's self-administration by both experimental animals and humans (Wise & Bozarth, 1987). However, drugs which block central DA receptors have been shown to cause a preferential disruption of avoidance performance (Lehr, 1980). In addition, a recent study in my laboratory has shown that d-amphetamine, like nicotine, facilitates the acquisition of a stressful shock avoidance task and that if the drug is given during training, its withdrawal results a disruption of avoidance behaviour very similar to that seen following the withdrawal of nicotine (Balfour, 1990a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the mesolimbic DA system is thought to form an important component of the reward systems of the brain, it has been suggested that the increase in mesolimbic DA secretion evoked by nicotine may account for the rewarding properties of the drug which mediate it's self-administration by both experimental animals and humans (Wise & Bozarth, 1987). However, drugs which block central DA receptors have been shown to cause a preferential disruption of avoidance performance (Lehr, 1980). In addition, a recent study in my laboratory has shown that d-amphetamine, like nicotine, facilitates the acquisition of a stressful shock avoidance task and that if the drug is given during training, its withdrawal results a disruption of avoidance behaviour very similar to that seen following the withdrawal of nicotine (Balfour, 1990a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, reports from a number of laboratories suggest that the locomotor stimulant properties of both drugs are related to their ability to stimulate preferentially the mesolimbic DA system of the brain (Kelly et a1 1975;Di Chiara & Imperato 1988;Clarke et a1 1988). Studies in other laboratories have also shown that neuroleptics disrupt avoidance performance and that the free avoidance schedule used in this study is particularly sensitive to this effect of the drugs (Lehr 1980). Thus, the data appear consistent with the hypothesis that the rats may have become dependent upon the enhanced levels of DA secretion evoked by administration of the stimulant drugs during training and that the locomotor stimulant properties of these agents by themselves may not be responsible for their effects on shock avoidance behaviour in this paradigm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…This finding probably reflccts increased plasma and tissue concentrations of the drug following this route of administration, because the ABSo following intraperitoneal administration was also lower. Reduction of avoidance responding, accompanied by an increase in escape responding, is a classical behavioral feature of most currently marketed antipsychotic agents [Fielding and Lal, 1978;Lehr, 1980;Worms et al, 19831. Given that Wy 47,384 shares this profile in conditioned avoidance tests, one would predict clinical antipsychotic efficacy for this compound.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2). A reduction in avoidance responding accompanied by a concomitant increase in escape responses in conditioned avoidance procedures is a classical indication of preclinical antipsychotic activity [Fielding and Lal, 1978;Lehr, 1980;Worms et al, 1Y831. In nondrug sessions, the numbers of "escape responses' ' and "no-response-during-trial responses" were low (0-3 responsesisession). After Wy 47,384 treatment, these responses increased to approximately 20 responses per session, which caused the percent-of-control scores to be rather large.…”
Section: Shelf-jump Conditioned Avoidancementioning
confidence: 99%