Benjamin P. Kowal

Regulation of Drug Taking by Sensitization and Habituation

The authors argue that drug taking is an operant behavior that is reinforced by the drug itself. The effectiveness of a drug as a reinforcer is modulated by sensitization and habituation to the drug as it is consumed. According to this model, drug taking stops when habituation reduces the ability of the drug to reinforce its own consumption. Drug taking resumes when spontaneous recovery restores the effectiveness of the drug as a reinforcer. This parsimonious model provides a framework for understanding many findings in the drug literature, including acute and chronic tolerance, the effect of deprivation on consumption, the contextual specificity of tolerance, polydrug abuse, cross-sensitization between stress and drugs, behavioral sensitization, priming, and reinstatement. Although this model cannot explain all aspects of drug taking (e.g., the effect of cognitive manipulations), it has many implications for understanding and controlling human drug consumption and addiction.

Within-Session Decreases in Operant Responding as a Function of Pre-Session Feedings

The effect of supplemental feedings on pigeons’ within-session changes in operant key-pecking was investigated. In different conditions, the feeding was either Purina Pigeon Checkers or mixed grain. The feedings were delivered 1, 4, and 12 hr prior to an experimental session. Responding changed significantly and systematically within sessions for all conditions. During the 1- and 4-hr pre-session feeding phases, absolute rates of responding were more suppressed and within-session decreases in responding were steeper when the reinforcer and supplemental feed were both mixed grain than when they differed. During the 12-hr pre-feeding phase, responding was unaffected by whether the supplemental food was similar to or differed from the food within the session. The results of the present experiment are generally consistent with the idea that habituation to the reinforcer contributes to within-session decreases in operant responding (e.g., McSweeney & Roll, 1998).

Within-session changes in responding during concurrent variable interval variable ratio schedules.

Rats (Experiment 1) and pigeons (Experiment 2) responded on several concurrent variable interval (VI) variable ratio (VR) schedules. The rate of, but not the time spent, responding in each component usually changed within-sessions. The bias and sensitivity parameters of the generalized matching law (GML) did not change systematically within-sessions. The fit of the GML to the data did not change within-sessions for pigeons, but it was better in the middle than at the beginning or end of the session for some for rats. Both over- and under-matching occurred. These results imply that within-session changes in responding do not usually cause problems for assessing the validity of the GML when subjects respond on concurrent VI VR schedules. The results also suggest that under- and over-matching are not produced by different factors, but rather lie on a continuum.

Varying reinforcer duration produces behavioral interactions during multiple schedules

The experiments tested the idea that changes in habituation to the reinforcer contribute to behavioral interactions during multiple schedules. This idea predicts that changing an aspect of the reinforcer should disrupt habituation and produce an interaction. Pigeons and rats responded on multiple variable interval variable interval schedules. Introducing variability into the duration of reinforcers in one component increased response rates in both components when the schedules provided high, but not low, rates of reinforcement. The increases in constant-component response rates grew larger as the session progressed. Within-session decreases in responding were smaller when the other component provided variable-, rather than fixed-, duration reinforcers. These results are consistent with the idea that changes in habituation to the reinforcer contribute to behavioral interactions. They help to explain why interactions do not occur for some subjects under conditions that produce them for others. Finally, the results question the assumption that induction and behavioral contrast are always produced by different theoretical mechanisms.

Extinguished operant responding shows stimulus specificity.

The experiment tested for stimulus specificity in extinguished operant responding. Eight pigeons pecked keys for food reinforcers delivered by a variable interval (VI) 60-s schedule. The key was illuminated with red light during some sessions and white light during others. Then, responding was placed on extinction. During some sessions of extinction, the color of the key light remained constant throughout the session (red or white). During other sessions the color changed at 30 min into the session (red to white or white to red). Response rate increased after the change of key color in extinction. If it is assumed that key color is part of the stimulus to which subjects habituate, then these results are consistent with McSweeney and Swindells [J. Gen. Psychol. 129 (2002) 364] suggestion that responding declines in extinction partly because subjects habituate to the stimuli that support conditioned responding. Habituation is relatively specific to the exact nature of the stimulus presented. Therefore, changes in the stimulus violate stimulus specificity and restore habituated responding. The results are also consistent with other theories that attribute extinction to a reduction of stimulus control [e.g., Psychol. Bull. 114 (1993) 80; J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 16 (1990) 235], but considerations such as parsimony and testability favor the habituation hypothesis over these theories.

The relation of multiple-schedule behavioral contrast to deprivation, time in session, and within-session changes in responding

Pigeons’ keypecking was reinforced by food on baseline schedules of multiple variable interval (VI)x VIx and on contrast schedules of multiple VIx VIy. Deprivation of food was varied by maintaining subjects at 75%, 85%, and 95% (±2%) of their free-feeding weights. Positive and negative behavioral contrast were observed. The size of the contrast was not systematically altered by changes in deprivation. Positive and negative contrast were both larger later in the session than they were earlier. Withinsession decreases in responding were steeper for the baseline than for the contrast schedules for positive contrast. Within-session decreases were steeper for the contrast than for the baseline schedules for negative contrast. These results were predicted by the idea that different amounts of habituation to the reinforcer during the baseline and contrast schedules contribute to behavioral contrast. The results show that contrast occurs under conditions that reduce the effect of the following component. The results support the assumption that positive and negative contrast are produced by symmetrical theoretical variables.

The effect of rate of reinforcement and time in session on preference for variability

Pigeons pecked keys on concurrent-chains schedules that provided a variable interval 30-sec schedule in the initial link. One terminal link provided reinforcers in a fixed manner; the other provided reinforcers in a variable manner with the same arithmetic mean as the fixed alternative. In Experiment 1, the terminal links provided fixed and variable interval schedules. In Experiment 2, the terminal links provided reinforcers after a fixed or a variable delay following the response that produced them. In Experiment 3, the terminal links provided reinforcers that were fixed or variable in size. Rate of reinforcement was varied by changing the scheduled interreinforcer interval in the terminal link from 5 to 225 sec. The subjects usually preferred the variable option in Experiments 1 and 2 but differed in preference in Experiment 3. The preference for variability was usually stronger for lower (longer terminal links) than for higher (shorter terminal links) rates of reinforcement. Preference did not change systematically with time in the session. Some aspects of these results are inconsistent with explanations for the preference for variability in terms of scaling factors, scalar expectancy theory, risk-sensitive models of optimal foraging theory, and habituation to the reinforcer. Initial-link response rates also changed within sessions when the schedules provided high, but not low, rates of reinforcement. Within-session changes in responding were similar for the two initial links. These similarities imply that habituation to the reinforcer is represented differently in theories of choice than are other variables related to reinforcement.

Dishabituation with component transitions may contribute to the interactions observed during multiple schedules

Rates of responding by rats were usually higher during the variable interval (VI) 30-s component of a multiple VI 30-s fixed interval (FI) 30-s schedule than during the same component of a multiple VI 30-s VI 30-s schedule (Experiment 1). Response rates were also usually higher during the FI 30-s component of a multiple VI 30-s FI 30-s schedule than during the same component of a multiple FI 30-s FI 30-s schedule (Experiment 2). The differences in response rates were not observed when the components provided VI or FI 120-s schedules. These results were predicted by the idea that differences in habituation to the reinforcer between multiple schedules contribute to behavioral interactions, such as behavioral contrast. However, differences in habituation were not apparent in the within-session patterns of responding. Finding differences in response rates in both experiments violates widely-held assumptions about behavioral interactions, including that behavioral contrast does not occur for rats and that improving the conditions of reinforcement decreases, rather than increases, response rate in the alternative component.