Conditioned Taste Avoidance Drug Discrimination Procedure: Assessments and Applications

In the present chapter, we summarize much of the work on the taste avoidance drug discrimination procedure, presenting the logic for its initial introduction and the extension of the procedure in the investigation of the discriminative properties of various drugs. Results from these assessments parallel those from more traditional operant and maze designs in classifying and characterizing the discriminative properties of drug. At the same time, this design reveals a procedure that is sensitive in such assessments by indexing these stimulus properties more rapidly and at lower doses than in the more traditional procedures (in some cases for drugs heretofore resistant in their detection). Importantly, much remains to be learned about the taste avoidance procedure in that the nature of such learning remains unknown and the specific parameters under which it can be established and generalized and its neurochemical and neuroanatomical bases are largely unexplored. The application of drug discrimination learning to human drug abuse continues to be an important consideration for this specific design (as well as that of drug discrimination procedures in general), and recent parallels between drug use and food intake in terms of its regulation by interoceptive stimuli suggests a possible role of the loss of stimulus control in drug escalation and addiction (with possible therapeutic implications via the modulation of these interoceptive cues).

Occasion setting by drug states: Functional equivalence following similar training history

Three experiments examined whether a drug state serving as a positive feature for pairings between a discrete conditional stimulus (CS, 15-s light or 15-s noise) and sucrose could transfer facilitative control to a CS with which it had never been presented. To do so, a CS was paired with a sucrose reward in the nicotine (0.4 mg/kg), amphetamine (AMP, 1mg/kg), or chlordiazepoxide (CDP, 5mg/kg) drug state; in separate saline sessions the CS was presented but was not followed by any reward. All three drug states facilitated responding to a discrete CS; previous studies found that this facilitation did not depend on direct associations between the drug state and sucrose. When a second discrimination was trained (e.g., CDP: light-sucrose and nicotine: noise-sucrose) the drug states facilitated responding to the CS trained in that state (nicotine: noise) as well as the CS normally presented in the other drug state (e.g., nicotine: light). A novel drug state (e.g., amphetamine) did not affect responding to either CS, indicating that the originally trained drug states had acquired functional similarity based on learning history. Also, a novel or ambiguous CS did not evoke responding in the previously trained drug state, indicating that both the features (drug states) and target conditional stimuli had to be trained in discriminations before transfer could occur.

Stimulus properties of nicotine, amphetamine, and chlordiazepoxide as positive features in a pavlovian appetitive discrimination task in rats

Recent experiments from our laboratory have demonstrated that drug states can signal when environmental cues will be followed by rewarding outcomes (ie Pavlovian conditioning). However, little is known about the generality of this approach and whether it can be used for studying the pharmacological properties of drug states. Accordingly, the present experiments tested the pharmacological specificity of nicotine (0.4 mg/kg), amphetamine (1 mg/kg), and chlordiazepoxide (CDP, 5 mg/kg) in this Pavlovian drug discrimination procedure. Following drug administration, presentation of a conditional stimulus (CS) was followed by brief access to sucrose. When saline was administered, the same CS was presented but sucrose was withheld. In substitution tests, rats in each condition received varying doses of all training drugs and caffeine. Anticipatory food seeking developed during the CS on drug sessions but not on saline sessions for all drug features (ie drug state-specific conditional response (CR)). In generalization tests, this CR decreased as a function of decreases in the training dose. Median effective doses (ED50s) were calculated for nicotine (0.054 mg/kg), amphetamine (0.26 mg/kg), and CDP (2.48 mg/kg). No compound tested substituted for the CDP training drug. Partial substitution was evident between nicotine and amphetamine; CDP did not substitute for either of these drug features. Caffeine fully substituted for nicotine (ED50 = 15.45 mg/kg) and amphetamine (ED50 = 3.70 mg/kg), but not for CDP. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that drug states can occasion appetitive Pavlovian CRs in a pharmacologically specific manner.

The discriminative stimulus effects of cocaine in a pavlovian sexual approach paradigm in male Japanese quail

Two groups of male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) were trained [corrected] to discriminate cocaine from saline in a conditioned approach procedure maintained by sexual reinforcement. For 1 group, cocaine (10 mg/kg ip) was administered prior to a conditioned stimulus (CS) that predicted copulation; saline followed by a CS predicted no copulation. A second group underwent the opposite training regimen. Results revealed apparent between-group differences in the rates of acquisition of the discrimination; however, during extinction trials, both groups responded more under the drug condition that predicted the female than to the condition that predicted no female. The results suggested that a drug discrimination may be maintained by sexual reinforcement. The findings are discussed with regard to interactions of cocaine and sexual reward, as well as to Pavlovian conditional stimulus control.

Nicotine vs. ethanol discrimination: extinction and spontaneous recovery of responding

Studies regarding extinction and spontaneous recovery of the discriminative stimulus effects of drugs are limited. Eight rats were initially trained to discriminate nicotine (0.4 mg/kg) vs. ethanol (800 mg/kg). For four rats, itraperitaneal (IP) administrations of nicotine fifteen minutes prior to fifteen-minute training sessions served as a discriminative stimulus (SD) for predicting food-reinforced lever pressing (VI-1 min). On other sessions ethanol functioned in predicting nonreinforcement (SA). The stimulus roles of the drugs were counterbalanced for the remaining four rats. SA and SD sessions alternated quasi-randomly with two daily sessions at 1000 and 1400 hours. Discriminative control was not disrupted following ten extinction sessions under a non-drug/saline condition, but was disrupted following extinction sessions under the original training drugs. Instances of spontaneous recovery (SR) occurred throughout extinction under the drug condtions. There was no evidence for SR two weeks following extinction, but partial recovery four weeks following the final extinction phase. Contextual status (context renewal) had neither a restorative or disruptive impact on extinguished or discriminated responding, respectively. These results support and extend the limited number of other studies by demonstrating extinction and spontaneous recovery of responding discriminated by two distinct drugs. Some theoretical interpretations regarding history effects and training in the context of drug discrimination are entertained.

Nicotine trace discrimination in rats with midazolam as a mediating stimulus

It was shown previously that effects of drugs present prior to training sessions could serve as discriminative stimuli. Further experiments have aimed to determine whether a second drug can serve as a mediating stimulus that increases the strength of stimulus control by such pre-session drug effects. Rats were trained in a two-lever discrimination procedure with food reinforcers presented on a tandem variable-interval fixed-ratio (VI-FR) schedule. Injections of nicotine (0.6 mg/kg) or saline were followed after 5 min by administration of midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) as a putative mediating stimulus. The nicotine antagonist mecamylamine (1.0 mg/kg) was administered 5 min after midazolam, to block effects of nicotine during training sessions, as in previous work on pre-session drug effects. Stimulus control was acquired slowly and to an accuracy of only 75%. Midazolam did not facilitate the acquisition or magnitude of nicotine-induced stimulus control. However, extinction tests showed that the presence of midazolam was required for expression of stimulus control by pre-session effects of the training dose of nicotine. The response to nicotine (0.075-0.6 mg/kg) was dose-related, but the dose-response relationship was not dependent upon the presence of midazolam. In a group of rats trained with nicotine and midazolam as above, but without mecamylamine, stimulus control by nicotine was not dependent upon the presence of midazolam. In all cases, overall rates of responding were very low when tests were carried out without midazolam, suggesting the presence of state-dependent learning. The results imply that under appropriate conditions the discriminative stimulus effects of one drug (nicotine) can be mediated by the action of a second substance (midazolam). This finding can be conceptualized in terms of occasion setting, with nicotine serving as the feature and midazolam as the target stimulus. Furthermore, it appears that even when rates of responding show drug-state dependence, this is not necessarily the case for discriminative stimulus effects.