Erowid References Database
“A Pharmacological Analysis of Processes Underlying Differential Responding: A Review and Further Experiments with Scopolamine, Amphetamine, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD-25), Chlordiazepoxide, Physostigmine, and Chlorpromazine”.
Behav. Biology. 1976;18:1-74.
The results obtained in these experiments, and those of previous work with several active-passive avoidance tasks, show that (i) enhancements of locomotor responses to no go signals can occur after scopolamine and amphetamine, both with an extinction and with a passive avoidance contingency during compounds made up of the active avoidance signal and of a stimulus from a different modality; (ii) complex interactions between-treatments, cues, and response-reinforcement relations can lead to marked differences between amphetamine and scopolamine hyperresponding in unsignaled portions of the schedules; (iv) a moderate LSD-25 disinhibition can take place in conditioned inhibition tasks, but not when the no go compound signals a passive avoidance contingency; (iv) a moderate disinhibition occurs also after chlordiazepaxide treatments; (v) the physostigmine facilitation of differential responding does not depend on the particular response-reinforcement contingency in no go trials; and (vi) the chlorpromazine depression of active responding is a nonselective one, and is not accompanied by any increase of low baseline responses. The following main conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the above data and those of the literature. In the first place, the fact that the LSD-25 disinhibition depends on response-reinforcement relations in no go trials, and not on task difficulty per se, suggests that the mechanisms
|Notes # : Amorico L, De Acetis L, Bignami G
Abstract No. 5218
[ Cite HTML