Quantification of drug choice with the generalized matching law in rhesus monkeys

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 209-224

  Koffarnus, Mikhail N ^a   Woods, James H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Cocaine; Lever press; Matching law; Methohexital; Remifentanil; Rhesus monkeys; Self administration

Indexed keywords

COCAINE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; DRUG SELF ADMINISTRATION; MACACA; MALE;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COCAINE; COGNITION; MACACA MULATTA; MALE; SELF ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 45549099043     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2008.89-209     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Anderson, K. G., Velkey, A. J., & Woolverton, W. L. (2002). The generalized matching law as a predictor of choice between cocaine and food in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology, 163, 319-326.
2. Anderson, K. G., & Woolverton, W. L. (2000). Concurrent variable-interval drug self-administration and the generalized matching law: A drug class comparison. Behavioural Pharmacology, 11, 413-420.
3. Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231-242.
4. Bergman, J., & Paronis, C. A. (2006). Measuring the reinforcing strength of abused drugs. Molecular Interventions, 6, 273-283.
5. Catania, A. C. (1963). Concurrent performances: A baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 299-300.
6. Chelonis, J. J., & Logue, A. W. (1996). Effects of response type on pigeons' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount and reinforcer delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 297-309.
7. Davison, M. (1988). Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 339-349.
8. Davison, M., & Baum, W. M. (2003). Every reinforcer counts: Reinforcer magnitude and local preference. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 95-129.
9. Davison, M., & Baum, W. M. (2006). Do conditional reinforcers count? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 269-283.
10. Davison, M., & Hogsden, I. (1984). Concurrent variable-interval schedule performance: Fixed versus mixed reinforcer durations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 169-182.
11. Galuska, C. M., Winger, G., Hursh, S. R., & Woods, J. H. (2006). Assessing unit-price related remifentanil choice in rhesus monkeys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 181-195.
12. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
13. Herrnstein, R.J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243-266.
14. Iglauer, C., & Woods, J. H. (1974). Concurrent performances: Reinforcement by different doses of intravenous cocaine in rhesus monkeys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 179-196.
15. Johanson, C. E., & Schuster, C. R. (1975). A choice procedure for drug reinforcers: Cocaine and methylphenidate in the rhesus monkey. The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental. 'Therapeutics, 193, 676-688.
16. Keller, J. V., & Gollub, L. R. (1977). Duration and rate of reinforcement as determinants of concurrent responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 28, 145-153.
17. Llewellyn, M, E., Iglauer, C., & Woods, J. H. (1976). Relative reinforcer magnitude under a nonindependent concurrent schedule of cocaine reinforcement in rhesus monkeys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 81-91.
18. Manzardo, A. M., Stein, L., & Belluzzi, J. D. (2002). Rats prefer cocaine over nicotine in a two-lever self-administration choice test. Brain Research, 924, 10-19.
19. McLean, A. P., & Blampied, N. M. (2001). Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: Independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration. Journal of the Experimental A nalysis of Behavior, 75, 25-42.
20. Miller, H. L.Jr. (1976). Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 335-347.
21. Motulsky, H. J., & Christopoulos, A. (2003). Fitting models to biohgical data using linear and nonlinear regression: A practical guide to curve fitting. San Diego, CA: GraphPad Software, Inc.
22. Rachlin, H., Kagel, J. H., & Battalio, R, C. (1980). Substitutability in time allocation. Psychohgical Review, 87, 355-374.
23. Todorov, J. C., Hanna, E. S., & Bittencourt de Sá, M. C. N. (1984). Frequency versus magnitude of reinforcement: New data with a different procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 157-167.
24. Wang, N. S., Brown, V. L., Grabowski, J., & Meisch, R. A. (2001). Reinforcement by orally delivered methadone, cocaine, and methadone-cocaine combinations in rhesus monkeys: Are the combinations better reinforcers? Psychopharmacology, 156, 63-72.
25. Wade-Galuska, T., Winger, G., & Woods, J. H. (in press). A behavioral economic analysis of cocaine and remifentanil self-administration in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology.
26. Woolverton, W. L. (1996). Intravenous self-administration of cocaine under concurrent VI schedules of reinforcement. Psychopharmacology, 127, 195-203.
27. Woolverton, W. L., & Ailing, K. (1999). Choice under concurrent VI. schedules: Comparison of behavior maintained by cocaine or food. Psychopharmacology, 141, 47-56.
28. Woolverton, W. L., & Johanson, C. E. (1984). Preference in rhesus monkeys given a choice between cocaine and d,l-cathinone. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 35-43.
29. Zar, J. H. (1999). Biostatistical analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.