Random-ratio schedules produce greater demand for i.v. drug administration than fixed-ratio schedules in rhesus monkeys

Psychopharmacology

Volumn 231, Issue 15, 2014, Pages 2981-2988

  Lagorio, Carla H ^a   Winger, Gail ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Behavioral economics; Cocaine; Demand curves; Drug self administration; Fixed ratio; Ketamine; Random ratio; Remifentanil; Response output curves; Rhesus monkeys

Indexed keywords

COCAINE; KETAMINE; REMIFENTANIL; ANESTHETIC AGENT; DOPAMINE UPTAKE INHIBITOR; NARCOTIC ANALGESIC AGENT; PIPERIDINE DERIVATIVE;

ADULT; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG ABUSE; DRUG COST; DRUG DEPENDENCE; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG QUALITY; DRUG RESPONSE; FEMALE; FIXED RATIO SCHEDULE; INTRAVENOUS ADMINISTRATION; MALE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOM RATIO SCHEDULE; REINFORCEMENT; RHESUS MONKEY; ADDICTION; ANIMAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE MODEL; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG SELF ADMINISTRATION; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGY; REWARD;

ADMINISTRATION, INTRAVENOUS; ANALGESICS, OPIOID; ANESTHETICS, DISSOCIATIVE; ANIMALS; COCAINE; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; DOPAMINE UPTAKE INHIBITORS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; KETAMINE; MACACA MULATTA; MALE; MOTIVATION; PIPERIDINES; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE; REWARD; SELF ADMINISTRATION; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 84904430710     PISSN: 00333158     EISSN: 14322072     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-014-3477-6     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Andrzejewski ME, Cardinal CD, Field DP, Flannery BA, Johnson M, Bailey K, Hineline PN (2005) Pigeons' choices between fixed and variable interval schedules: utility of variability. J Exp Anal Behav 83:129-145. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.30-04
2. Bancroft SL, Bourret JC (2008) Generating variable and random schedules of reinforcement using Microsoft Excel macros. J Appl Behav Anal 41:227-235. doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-227
3. Broadbear JH, Winger G, Woods JH (2004) Self-administration of fentanyl, cocaine and ketamine: effects on the pituitary-adrenal axis in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 176:398-406. doi:10.1007/s00213-004-1891-x (Pubitemid 40012747)
4. Cicerone RA (1976) Preference for mixed versus constant delay of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 25:257-261. doi:10.1901/jeab.1976.25-257
5. Davison MC (1972) Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules: number of component intervals. J Exp Anal Behav 17:169-176. doi:10.1901/jeab.1972.17-169
6. Fantino E (1967) Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav 10:35-43. doi:10.1901/jeab.1967.10-35
7. Fantino E, Arbaraca N, Ito M (1987) Choice and optimal foraging: tests of the delay reduction hypothesis and the optimal diet model. In: Commons ML, Kacelnik A, Shettleworth SJ (eds) Foraging. Quantitative analyses of behavior Erlbaum. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
8. Ferster CB, Skinner BF (1957) Schedules of reinforcement. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
9. Herrnstein RJ (1964) Aperiodicity as a factor in choice. J Exp Anal Behav 7:179-182. doi:10.1901/jeab.1964.7-179
10. Hursh SR (1980) Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav 34:219-238. doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.34-219
11. Hursh SR (1988) A cost-benefit analysis of demand for food. J Exp Anal Behav 50:419-440. doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.50-419
12. Hursh SR, Fantino E (1973) Relative delay of reinforcement and choice. J Exp Anal Behav 19:437-450. doi:10.1901/jeab.1973.19-437
13. Hursh SR, Silberberg A (2008) Economic demand and essential value. Psychol Rev 115:186-198. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.186
14. Hursh SR, Winger G (1995) Normalized demand for drugs and other reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav 64:373-384. doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.64-373
15. Kobayashi S, Schultz W (2008) Influence of reward delays on responses of dopamine neurons. J Neurosci 28:7837-7846. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1600-08.2008
16. Lagorio CH, Hackenberg TD (2010) Risky choice in pigeons and humans: a cross-species comparison. J Exp Anal Behav 93:27-44. doi:10.1901/jeab.2010.93-27
17. Lagorio CH, Hackenberg TD (2012) Risky choice in pigeons: preference for amount variability using a token-reinforcement system. J Exp Anal Behav 98:139-154. doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.98-139
18. Logan FA (1965) Decision making by rats: uncertain outcome choices. J Comp Physiol Psych 59:246-251. doi:10.1037/h0021850
19. Madden GJ, Dake JM, Mauel EC, Rowe RR (2005) Labor supply and consumption of food in a closed economy under a range of fixed-and random-ratio schedules: tests of unit price. J Exp Anal Behav 83:99-118. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.32-04 (Pubitemid 40465822)
20. Madden GJ, Ewan EE, Lagorio CH (2007) Toward an animal model of gambling: delay discounting and the allure of unpredictable outcomes. J Gambl Stud 23:63-83. doi:10.1007/s10899-006-9041-5
21. Mazur JE (1984) Tests of an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 10:426-436. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.10.4.426
22. Mazur JE (2004) Risky choice: selecting between certain and uncertain outcomes. Behav Anal Today 5:190-203
23. Schultz W (2012) Risky dopamine. Biol Psychiatry 71:180-181. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.11.019
24. Soreth ME, Hineline PN (2009) The probability of small schedule values and preference for random-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav 91:89-103. doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.91-89
25. Winger G, Hursh SR, Casey KL, Woods JH (2002) Relative reinforcing strength of three N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists with different onsets of action. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 301:690-697. doi:10.1124/jpet.301.2.690 (Pubitemid 34429985)
26. Zeiler MD (1979) Output dynamics. In: Zeiler MD, Harzem P (eds) Advances in analysis of behaviour: reinforcement and the organization of behavior. Wiley, Chichester