This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0269881107083842v1 0269881107083842v2 0269881107083842v3 0269881107083842v4 0269881107083842v5 0269881107083842v6 22/8/849    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cassaday, H J Articles by Horsley, R.R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cassaday, H J Articles by Horsley, R.R. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Hazardous Substances DB DEXTROAMPHETAMINE DOPAMINE METHYLPHENIDATE NICOTINE NICOTINE TARTRATE Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Methylphenidate and nicotine focus responding to an informative discrete CS over successive sessions of appetitive conditioning

School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

	Abstract

Methylphenidate (MP) and nicotine would be expected to improve associativelearning, though previous evidence suggests that they shouldreduce the selectivity with which associations are formed. Here we testedtheir effects on learning the association between a conditioned stimulus(CS) and food (unconditioned stimulus, UCS) in male Wistar rats. The UCSwas delivered immediately (0 s) following CS offset or after a 10 s trace.In addition to the measures of discrete CS conditioning, contextual andtrace responding was measured in the inter-trial- and the inter-stimulusinterval,respectively. In all cases, conditioning was measured as nosepoking for food. Both MP and nicotine improved the acquisition of discretecue conditioning. Acquisition was accelerated (compared to saline)under 5 but not 1mg/kg MP and 0.6, but not 0.4mg/kg nicotine. In eachcase, this effect was observed in 0 s but not 10 s conditioned groups. Forcomparison, some earlier published data obtained following the sameprocedure with D-amphetamine were re-analysed in the same way.Amphetamine similarly improved conditioning in the 0 s group, in thiscase at 0.5, but not 1.5mg/kg. Thus three different dopamine agonistsincreased the ability to focus responding to CS presentations oversuccessive sessions of appetitive acquisition.

Key Words: methylphenidate, nicotine, trace interval, appetitive conditioning, rat

First published on January 21, 2008, doi:10.1177/0269881107083842

Journal of Psychopharmacology 2008;22:849.

A more recent version of this article appeared on November 1, 2008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?