Interoceptive conditioning in rats: effects of using a single training dose or a set of 5 different doses of nicotine.

Steven T Pittenger, Rick A Bevins
Author Information
  1. Steven T Pittenger: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Psychology, 238 Burnett Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, USA.

Abstract

Interoceptive conditioning contributes to the tenacity of nicotine dependence. Previous research investigating nicotine as an interoceptive stimulus has typically employed administration of a single training dose of nicotine over an extended time. This approach has allowed for careful study of the nicotine stimulus. In humans, the nicotine stimulus is unlikely to be fixed across learning episodes. Thus, from a translational perspective, systematic variation of nicotine dose in training might better approximate interoceptive conditioning in humans. Notably, training with a class or set of discrete exteroceptive stimuli (e.g., different pictures of cars) produces interesting behavioral differences relative to training with a single stimulus. The present study sought to determine whether similar differences would occur if a set of nicotine stimuli were used in place of a single dose. To investigate this question, one group of male Sprague-Dawley rats was trained on a discriminated goal-tracking task with a set of nicotine doses (0.05, 0.125, 0.2, 0.275, and 0.35mg/kg). A second group received the standard protocol of training with a single nicotine dose (0.2mg/kg). On each nicotine session, there was intermittent access to liquid sucrose (26%) in a conditioning chamber. On intermixed saline sessions, sucrose was withheld. We examined acquisition, subsequent extinction, transfer of extinction, nicotine generalization, and mecamylamine blockade. Both groups reliably discriminated between nicotine and saline sessions, were sensitive to non-reinforcement, displayed transfer of extinction, demonstrated dose-dependent nicotine generalization, and responding was blocked by mecamylamine. There were no significant differences between the two groups. The unique nature of an interoceptive pharmacological stimulus and the challenges posed for studying the impact of training with a set of interoceptive stimuli are discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Nebr Symp Motiv. 2009;55:17-30 [PMID: 19013937]
  2. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2009 Dec;94(2):319-28 [PMID: 19778551]
  3. Behav Pharmacol. 1996 Aug;7(4):364-372 [PMID: 11224430]
  4. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002 May;10(2):77-83; discussion 101-3 [PMID: 12022801]
  5. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1984;83(2):159-62 [PMID: 6431466]
  6. Eur J Pharmacol. 2007 Apr 30;561(1-3):91-104 [PMID: 17343849]
  7. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2001 Jan;68(1):135-45 [PMID: 11274718]
  8. Behav Pharmacol. 1996 Oct;7(5):483-494 [PMID: 11224445]
  9. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Mar;63(2):165-74 [PMID: 16812755]
  10. Behav Neurosci. 2009 Feb;123(1):97-108 [PMID: 19170434]
  11. Behav Pharmacol. 2013 Feb;24(1):45-54 [PMID: 23263484]
  12. Behav Pharmacol. 1993 Jun;4(3):209-215 [PMID: 11224188]
  13. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 May;13(3):385-90 [PMID: 16811452]
  14. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1979 Apr;5(2):116-29 [PMID: 528881]
  15. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002 Aug;10(3):162-83 [PMID: 12233979]
  16. Behav Pharmacol. 1996 Mar;7(2):144-154 [PMID: 11224406]
  17. Behav Neurosci. 2013 Jun;127(3):465-73 [PMID: 23731077]
  18. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2004 Feb;172(1):108-17 [PMID: 14530902]
  19. Behav Pharmacol. 2011 Sep;22(5-6):415-29 [PMID: 21808191]
  20. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2004 Sep;3(3):143-58 [PMID: 15653812]
  21. Behav Pharmacol. 2006 Mar;17(2):161-72 [PMID: 16495724]
  22. Neuropharmacology. 2010 Jun;58(8):1237-45 [PMID: 20302882]
  23. Neuropharmacology. 2014 Jan;76 Pt B:342-50 [PMID: 23855999]
  24. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1999 Oct;25(4):491-504 [PMID: 10531660]
  25. Behav Anal. 1980 Fall;3(2):41-8 [PMID: 22478480]
  26. Nebr Symp Motiv. 2004;50:1-18 [PMID: 15160636]
  27. Science. 1964 Oct 23;146(3643):549-51 [PMID: 14190250]
  28. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1996 Jan;123(1):46-54 [PMID: 8741954]
  29. Biochem Pharmacol. 1989 Oct 15;38(20):3391-7 [PMID: 2684166]
  30. PLoS One. 2008 Aug 06;3(8):e2846 [PMID: 18682722]
  31. Nebr Symp Motiv. 2009;55:5-15 [PMID: 19013936]
  32. Behav Processes. 2012 May;90(1):28-33 [PMID: 22119845]
  33. J Psychopharmacol. 2010 Jun;24(6):817-28 [PMID: 19304864]
  34. Behav Processes. 2009 May;81(1):136-9 [PMID: 19429207]
  35. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012 Mar;37(4):876-84 [PMID: 22048468]
  36. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007 Oct;15(5):501-9 [PMID: 17924784]
  37. Behav Pharmacol. 2007 Dec;18(8):707-16 [PMID: 17989508]
  38. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2009 Sep;205(4):655-65 [PMID: 19495728]

Grants

  1. R21 DA023951/NIDA NIH HHS
  2. DA034389/NIDA NIH HHS
  3. R01 DA034389/NIDA NIH HHS
  4. DA018114/NIDA NIH HHS
  5. R01 DA018114/NIDA NIH HHS
  6. DA023951/NIDA NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Animals
Conditioning, Operant
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Male
Mecamylamine
Nicotine
Nicotinic Antagonists
Rats
Rats, Sprague-Dawley

Chemicals

Nicotinic Antagonists
Mecamylamine
Nicotine

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0nicotinetraining0conditioningstimulussingledosesetinteroceptivestimulidifferencesextinctionInteroceptivestudyhumansdifferentgroupdiscriminateddosessucrosesalinesessionstransfergeneralizationmecamylaminegroupscontributestenacitydependencePreviousresearchinvestigatingtypicallyemployedadministrationextendedtimeapproachallowedcarefulunlikelyfixedacrosslearningepisodesThustranslationalperspectivesystematicvariationmightbetterapproximateNotablyclassdiscreteexteroceptiveegpicturescarsproducesinterestingbehavioralrelativepresentsoughtdeterminewhethersimilaroccurusedplaceinvestigatequestiononemaleSprague-Dawleyratstrainedgoal-trackingtask05125227535mg/kgsecondreceivedstandardprotocol2mg/kgsessionintermittentaccessliquid26%chamberintermixedwithheldexaminedacquisitionsubsequentblockadereliablysensitivenon-reinforcementdisplayeddemonstrateddose-dependentrespondingblockedsignificanttwouniquenaturepharmacologicalchallengesposedstudyingimpactdiscussedrats:effectsusing5DrugdiscriminationPavlovianRatsSmokingTobacco

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)