A dynamic extraversion model. the brain's response to a single dose of a stimulant drug

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 211-231

  Amigó, Salvador ^a   Caselles, Antonio ^a   Mico, Joan C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CENTRAL STIMULANT AGENT;

ADDICTION; ARTICLE; BRAIN; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFECT; EXTRAVERSION; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; MOTIVATION; PERSONALITY TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BRAIN; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM STIMULANTS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; EXTRAVERSION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MOTIVATION; PERSONALITY TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 44349152924     PISSN: 00071102     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/000711007X185514     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allen, B. P., & Potkay, C. R. (1981). On the arbitrary distinction between state and trait. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 916-928.
2. Amigó, S. (2002). Legalizar los porros? Estudio comparativo sobre el consumo de cannabis, éxtasis y cocaína en una muestra de jóvenes (Legalizing joints? A comparative study about Cannabis, Extasis and Cocaine comsumption in a sample of joung people). Informació Psicològica, 78, 55-70.
3. Amigó, S. (2005). La teoría del rasgo único de personalidad. Hacia una teoría unificada del cerebro y la conducta (The unique-trait personality theory. Towards a unified theory of brain and conduct). Valencia: Editorial de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.
4. Amigó, S., & Seshadri, V. (1999). Consumo de cannabis: Determinantes y consecuencias en una muestra de estudiantes valencianos (Cannabis consumption: Determinant factors and consequences in a sample of students). Informació Psicològica, 71, 66-71.
5. Caselles, A. (1992). Structure and behavior in general systems theory. Cybernetics and Systems: An international journal, 23, 549-560.
6. Caselles, A. (1993). Systems decomposition and coupling. Cybernetics and Systems: An international journal, 24, 305-323.
7. Caselles, A. (1994). Improvements in the systems-based models generator SIGEM. Cybernetics and Systems: An international journal, 25, 81-103.
8. Caselles, A. (1995). Systems Autonomy and Learning from Experience. Advances in Systems Science and Applications, Special Issue I, 1-000, 1-6.
9. Cattell, R. B., & Kline, P. (1977). The scientific analysis of personality and motivation. London: Academic Press.
10. Daw, N. D., Kakade, S., & Dayan, P. (2002). Opponent interactions between serotonin and dopamine. Neural Networks, 15, 603-613.
11. Eckstein, S. G. (1999). A dynamic model of cognitive growth in a population: Spatial tasks and conservation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 43, 34-70.
12. Ettenberg, A. (2004). Opponent process properties of self-administered cocaine. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 27, 721-728.
13. Ettenberg, A., Raven, M. A., Danluck, D. A., & Necessary, B. D. (1999). Evidence for opponentprocess actions of intravenous cocaine. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 64, 507-512.
14. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences. New York: Plenum.
15. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
16. Forrester, J. W. (1970). Urban dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
17. Gray, J. A. (1972). The psychophysiological nature of introversion-extroversion: A modification of Eysenck's theory. In V. D. Nebilitsyn & J. A. Gray (Eds.), Biological basis on individual behaviour (pp. 182-205). New York: Academic Press.
18. Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model of personality (pp. 246-276). New York: Springer.
19. Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septohippocampal system. New York: Oxford Universtity Press.
20. Grossberg, S. (2000). The unbalanced brain: From normal to schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 48, 81-98.
21. Haken, H. (2002). Brain dynamics. Synchronization and activity patterns in pulse-coupled neural nets with delays and noise. New York: Springer.
22. Johnson, D. L., Wiebe, J. S., Gold, S. M., Andreasen, N. C., Hichwa, R. D., Watkins, G. L., et al. (1999). Cerebral blood flow and personality: A positron emission tomography study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 252-257.
23. Kandel, D. B. (1978). Convergences in prospective longitudinal surveys of drug use in normal populations. In D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal research on drug use: Empirical finding and methodological issues (pp. 3-38). New York and Washington: Hemisphere, Wiley.
24. Knackstedt, L. A., Samimi, M. M., & Ettenberg, A. (2002). Evidence for opponent-process actions of intravenous cocaine and cocaethylene. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 7, 931-936.
25. Knyazev, G. G., Slobodskaya, H. R., & Wilson, G. D. (2002). Psychophysiological correlates of behavioural inhibition and activation. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 647-660.
26. Koob, G. E, Stinus, L., Le Moal, M., & Bloom, F. E. (1989). Opponent process theory of motivation: Neurobiological evidence from studies of opiate dependence. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 13, 135-140.
27. Nestler, E. J. (2001). Molecular basis of long-term plasticity underlying addiction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 119-128.
28. Pelechano, V. (1973). Personalidad y adaptación: Tres escuelas y un modelo (Personality and adaptation: Three schools and one model). Barcelona: Vicens Vives.
29. Pelechano, V. (2000). Psicología sistemática de la personalidad (Sistematic Psychology of personality). Barcelona: Ariel.
30. Ranieri, D. J., & Zeiss, A. M. (1984). Induction of depressed mood: A test of opponent-process theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1413-1422.
31. Robinson, P. A., Rennie, C. J., & Rowe, D. L. (2002). Dynamics of large-scale brain activity in normal arousal status and epileptic seizures. Physical Review E, 65, 1-9.
32. Robinson, R A., Rennie, C. J., Rowe, D. L., O'Connor, S. C., Wright, J. J., Gordon, E., et al. (2003). Neurophysical modeling of brain dynamics. Neuropsychopharmacology, 28, 74-79.
33. Rydelius, P. A. (1983). Alcohol-abusing teenage boys: Testing a hypothesis on alcohol abuse and personality factors using a personality inventory. Acta Pscychiatrica Scandinava, 68, 381-385.
34. Scott, A. (2002). Neuroscience. A mathematical primer. New York: Springer.
35. Smith, P. L. (2000). Stochastic dynamic models of response time and accuracy: A foundational primer. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 408-463.
36. Solomon, R. L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. American Psychologist, 35, 691-712.
37. Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation. I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81, 119-145.
38. Volkow, N. D., Chang, L., Wang, G. -J., Fowler, J. S., Ding, Y. -S., Sedler, M., et al. (2001). Low level of brain dopamine D2 receptors in methamphetamine abusers: Association with metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 2015-2021.
39. Volkow, N. D., Ding, Y. -S., Fowler, J. S., Wang, G. -L., Logan, J., Gatley, J. S., et al. (1995). Is methylphenidate like cocaine? Studies on their pharmacokinetics and distribution in human brain. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 456-463.
40. 2 receptor levels. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1440-1443.
41. Wang, G. -J., Volkow, N. D., Hitzemann, R., Wong, C., Angrist, B., Burr, G., et al. (1997). Behavioral and cardiovascular effects of intravenous methylphenidate in normal subjects and cocaine abusers. European Addiction Research, 3, 49-54.
42. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlan, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757-768.