Erowid References Database
Harvey JA, Gormezano I, Cool VA.
“Effects of d-lysergic Acid Diethylamide, d-2-Bromolysergic Acid Diethylamide, dl-2,5-Dimethoxy-4-Methylamphetamine and d-Amphetamine on Classical Conditioning of the Rabbit Nictitating Membrane Response”.
THE JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS. 1982;221(2):289-294.
|
Abstract
Classical conditioning of the rabbit nictitating membrane response was accomplished by presenting tone and light conditioned stimuli for 800 msec before delivery of the unconditioned stimulus consisting of a 100-msec electric shock to the skin over the paraorbital region of the head. The rate of acquisition of conditioned responses to both tone and light conditioned stimuli was significantly increased by both d-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and dl-2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (DOM). d-Amphetamine (AMP) differed from LSD and DOM in that it enhanced the rate of acquisition to the light but not to the tone conditioned stimulus. There was no effect of d-2-bromolysergic acid diethylamide on acquisition of conditioned responses to either conditioned stimulus. The order of potency for increasing the rate of conditioned response acquisition was: LSD > DOM > AMP for the light-conditioned stimulus; and LSD > DOM for the tone-conditioned stimulus. Separate groups of rabbits received explicitly unpaired presentations of stimuli (tone alone, light alone and shock alone) in order to determine the nonassociative effects of these drugs on response production. LSD and AMP produced no increase in either base-line responding, responding to the tone and light stimuli or the amplitude of the unconditioned response to shock. Therefore, the increased rate of acquisition of conditioned resopnses produced by LSD and AMP could be attributed to an effect on associative factors. DOM also had no effect on the amplitude of the unconditioned response to shock, but the highest dose used (3 mcmol/kg) did increase both base-line rate of responding and resonding to tone and light stimuli. Therefore, the increased rate of acquisition of conditioned responses produced by DOM appeared, at least at the highest dose, to be due to some combination of effects on both associatve and nonassociative factors. Thus, while LSD, DOM and AMP had the common effect of increaseing the rate of acquisition of conditioned resopnses, AMP differed from LSD and DOM by having a selective effect on acquisition to the light conditioned stimulus and DOM differed from LSD and AMP by its effects on nonassociative contributors to conditioned resopnse production.
|
# |
Submit Comment |
|
[
Cite HTML ]