THE EFFECTS OF D-AMPHETAMINE ON THE REINFORCING EFFECTS OF FOOD AND FLUID USING A NOVEL PROCEDURE COMBINING SELF-ADMINISTRATION AND LOCATION PREFERENCE
Sm. Evans et Rw. Foltin, THE EFFECTS OF D-AMPHETAMINE ON THE REINFORCING EFFECTS OF FOOD AND FLUID USING A NOVEL PROCEDURE COMBINING SELF-ADMINISTRATION AND LOCATION PREFERENCE, Behavioural pharmacology, 8(5), 1997, pp. 429-441
Using a laboratory animal procedure designed to measure two aspects of
behavior related to commodity seeking (self-administration and locati
on preference), five individually housed adult rhesus monkeys lived in
three chambers: fluid-(sweetened Kool-Aid(R) solution) related cues a
nd oral fluid self-administration were specific to one end chamber, fo
od pellet-related cues and food self-administration were specific to t
he other end chamber, and no food cues or fluid cues were available in
the middle chamber. Throughout the 10 h experimental day, monkeys exp
erienced multiple food, fluid, choice (food versus fluid), and no-comm
odity sessions. Oral d-amphetamine (AMPH; 0.5-1.5 mg/kg) or placebo wa
s administered before the sessions to determine if this anorectic drug
would differentially alter food and fluid self-administration. The ef
fects of AMPH on the length of time monkeys spent in each chamber, whe
n the stimulus lights indicating commodity availability were not illum
inated (location preference) were also determined. AMPH decreased both
food and fluid self-administration, but responding for fluid was redu
ced to a greater extent than responding for food. AMPH, however, incre
ased the length of time monkeys spent in the food chamber, even when n
o stimulus lights indicating food availability were illuminated. The i
ncrease in the length of time spent in the food chamber was predicted
by the decrease in the number of fluid deliveries, not the number of f
ood deliveries. These results indicate that the relationship between s
elf-administration and location preference, as measures of reinforcing
effects, is not completely concordant. The current procedure may prov
e useful in comparing these two measures of reinforcing effects with o
ther reinforcers.