Conditioned Place Preference

In the conditioned place preference paradigm , an animal learns to associate the effects of a passively administered substance with the environment in which the drug was received. A typical conditioned place preference apparatus is shown in Fig. 8.1 , and consists of two compartments with unique tactile and visual characteristics (i.e., striped walls and mesh flooring in one compartment versus transparent or solid walls and metal bar flooring in the other). Occasionally, distinct olfactory cues are used in each compartment. These two conditioning compartments are connected by a neutral center start compartment. Each compartment is typically equipped with photobeams located just above the floor that can detect the presence of the animal and concurrent locomotor activity and record them via an interfaced computer.

The conditioned place preference paradigm. (A) Following a preconditioning test to habituate the animal to the conditioned place preference apparatus and to detect any innate bias toward one of the conditioning compartments, the animal is injected with a neutral substance, such as saline, and confined to one of the two contextually distinct conditioning compartments for a fixed amount of time. (B) After a period of several hours or on the following day, the animal is injected with a drug of abuse, such as cocaine, and confined to the other compartment for the same amount of time. (C) Following several days of conditioning, the animal is then placed in the center “start” compartment and is given the opportunity to enter either compartment at will (as indicated by question marks in the figure). Most abused drugs reliably produce a preference for the drug-paired environment over the saline-paired environment. The front wall of the start compartment in panel C is removed to show the location of the animal.

In a typical conditioned place preference experiment, an animal undergoes baseline preference testing and habituation, whereby it is placed in the center start compartment and allowed free access to both conditioning chambers for a set amount of time (i.e., 30 min). This allows for the animal to habituate to the testing environment as well as for the experimenter to determine whether the animal exhibits any innate bias toward one of the two conditioning compartments. (An ideal conditioned place preference apparatus would produce no innate preferences for either compartment.) This first period of access to the conditioning compartment also serves as a preconditioning test, and the time spent in either compartment can later be compared against the same variable after conditioning with the drug. Following this habituation and preconditioning test, the animal is injected with a neutral substance (i.e., saline) and is then confined to one of the two conditioning compartments (using automated or manual guillotine-type doors) for a fixed period of time. On the following day, the animal is injected with the conditioning drug (e.g., morphine, cocaine, or amphetamine) and confined to the other conditioning compartment for the same amount of time. These conditioning trials are repeated in an alternating fashion (i.e., saline-drug-saline-drug-…) a number of times so that the animal learns to associate the unique physical characteristics of the drug-paired compartment with the subjective effects of the conditioning drug. Finally, on the test day, the animal is placed back in the center compartment in a drug-free state and is allowed free access to both conditioning compartments for the same amount of time as during the preconditioning test. If the animal spends significantly more time in the drug-paired compartment than in the saline-paired compartment, conditioned place preference has been established, reflecting the animal’s association of the drug compartment with the subjective (presumably pleasurable or rewarding) effects of the drug. Conditioned place preference has been demonstrated in rodents for all drugs of abuse, although the experimental procedures may vary by the drug and its individual pharmacokinetic properties. Conditioned place aversion is observed if the animal spends significantly less time in the drug-paired compartment than in the saline-paired compartment. Withdrawal from chronic drug exposure reliably produces conditioned place aversion. In addition, some drugs such as ethanol can also produce conditioned place aversion if the peak positive subjective effects of the drug are not timed and are paired correctly with the drug-conditioned compartment.

One advantage of the conditioned place preference paradigm is that the experiments are relatively simple, inexpensive, and less time-consuming to conduct than more involved procedures such as intravenous drug self-administration. In addition, conditioned place preference paradigms can be used to simulate various aspects of relapse. This is accomplished in one of two ways: (1) extinguishing an established conditioned place preference by repeatedly pairing the previously drug-paired compartment with saline, or (2) allowing the conditioned place preference to dissipate over a period of several weeks by repeated testing of place preference. Then drug priming or stress can be introduced to the animal to reinstate the original conditioned place preference, a phenomenon that has been hypothesized to model drug-seeking behavior.

Despite its simplicity and ease of use, there are several disadvantages of the conditioned place preference paradigm. First and foremost, the animal subjects do not actively self-administer the drug; it is passively administered as a bolus injection by the experimenter. In addition to potential pharmacokinetic differences in plasma and brain levels of the drug between passive and active self-administration, a substantial amount of evidence has accumulated indicating that active versus passive drug administration produces significant differences in neurochemical, endocrine, and other responses to drugs of abuse. These differences may underlie some of the discordant findings between studies using pharmacological or other experimental manipulations in the conditioned place preference paradigm and those utilizing active self-administration. In addition, the primary dependent variable measured in the conditioned place preference paradigm does not directly measure drug-seeking behavior but, rather, the motivation for drug-associated environments. Despite these limitations, the conditioned place preference paradigm undoubtedly has provided useful information on the neural substrates that underlie drug-environment conditioning and their contribution to addictive behaviors, as discussed later in this chapter.

Another important point to address is what exactly is learned in conditioned place preference? We know that temporal contiguity is necessary and sufficient for learning. In conditioned place preference experiments, there tends to be a perfect predictive relationship between the context conditioned stimulus (CS) and administration of the drug. In addition, the drug unconditioned stimulus (US) and context CS always co-occur. Thus, the rules of temporal contiguity are met and learning occurs in this model. However, the CS is a complex, multimodal stimulus (a context) that includes distinct olfactory, visual, tactile, auditory, and spatial elements. Does each element of the stimulus enter into an independent association with the drug US, or do all of the distinct elements combine to form a single, configural stimulus that then becomes associated with the US? These relationships are somewhat unclear; thus we really do not know how the context CS is neurally encoded. This is problematic for interpretation of the neurobiological underpinnings of drug conditioning in this model. In addition, drug self-administration is a model typically used to identify the reinforcing efficacy of drugs of abuse (see subsequent text). Is conditioned place preference isomorphic with self-administration? In some cases, drugs of abuse elicit place preference and are self-administered, but this is not always the case. Thus it appears that these two models might tap into different neurobiological systems that govern the ability of stimuli to elicit drug-motivated behavior.

Conditioned Tolerance

It has long been known that exposure to drugs of abuse can lead to biological changes that are governed by environmental stimuli. Indeed, environmental stimuli that are contiguously and consistently paired with administration of drugs of abuse begin to take on value and become quite powerful in their ability to modulate the biological and behavioral effects of the drug. When individuals with substance use disorders are asked to consider factors that contribute to relapse, environmental stimuli are identified as being equally or more powerful than other influences, including mood or impulsive choices. One biological phenomenon that occurs is tolerance, in which repeated use of a drug over time results in a decreasing effect of the drug, and drug-associated stimuli elicit conditioned responses that attenuate the drug effect. For example, early studies have shown that tolerance to heroin can be conditioned to the environment in which the drug is normally consumed. If the drug is taken in a novel environment, this conditioned tolerance will not protect against a high dose of the drug, and overdose is likely to occur to a dose that would be tolerated in the conditioned environment. This phenomenon can be modeled in animals. Specifically, rats were exposed to either heroin or placebo in a colony room or a noisy room, repeatedly for 30 days. Following this exposure, rats were given a high dose of heroin (15 mg/kg) on a test day either in the same room they had received the injections previously, or in a novel room in which they never received heroin exposure (either the colony or noisy room). Mortality rates of rats that received the high dose of heroin in the room in which they had previously received placebo were quite high (96%), whereas rats that received the high dose of heroin in the room in which heroin was previously administered had a relatively low mortality rate (32%). This experiment demonstrates the power of environmental stimuli in governing the biological responses underlying drug use.

Conditioned Cue Enhancement of Drug Self-Administration

One of the most widely used paradigms to study drug addiction in animals is the intravenous self-administration paradigm ( Fig. 8.2 ). In the case of rodents, a rat or mouse is surgically implanted with an indwelling intravenous catheter into the jugular or femoral vein, which exits the skin on the dorsal side of the animal and is connected to a vascular access port. Following recovery from surgery, the animal is placed in a self-administration apparatus chamber equipped with one or two levers that are interfaced with a computer and a syringe pump. In lieu of levers, some investigators utilize a nose-poke hole on the wall of the self-administration apparatus, whereby a nose-poke into the correct hole triggers the delivery of a reinforcer. A positive reinforcer is defined as a stimulus that increases the likelihood that the response will occur again in the future (e.g., an addictive drug), whereas a negative reinforcer is defined as a stimulus that decreases the likelihood that the response will occur again (e.g., an aversive stimulus such as an electric shock). To learn the operant task (i.e., lever-press or nose-poke), the animal is often initially trained to perform the task in order to receive a natural reinforcer such as a food or sucrose pellet. (The animal is mildly food-restricted to increase its motivation to seek food during initial training.) However, not all investigators use this initial food restriction and training, since it changes the nutritional and metabolic state of the animal. Instead, some investigators may choose to capitalize on the intrinsic exploratory nature of rodents, since over time the animal will eventually exert the correct operant response, receive an intravenous drug infusion, and, with repeated training sessions, learn that this correct response results consistently in the delivery of the drug solution.

Cue-induced enhancement of drug self-administration. (A) Animals trained to perform an operant task (such as a lever-press or nose-poke) in the absence of simultaneous presentation of any discrete cues (i.e., light, tone, or olfactory stimulus) show relatively low levels of responding for the drug alone. (B) In animals trained to self-administer the drug with concomitant presentation of discrete cues, responding for drug reinforcement is increased.

The drug solution is delivered by a computer-controlled syringe pump located outside the self-administration apparatus. The pump contains a drug solution that is connected to a single-channel liquid swivel, which allows free rotation of the animal while maintaining a continuous flow of fluid. Plastic tubing is then housed in a stainless steel spring tether and is attached to the animal via a vascular access port implanted on the dorsal side of the animal, which is connected to the indwelling venous catheter.

In the case of alcohol, intravenous self-administration procedures are used less frequently, since this method lacks the face validity and pharmacokinetics of human oral alcohol consumption, and the ability of intravenous ethanol to function as a reinforcer is less reliable. Thus most animal models of alcohol self-administration utilize an experimental apparatus by which—instead of a syringe pump delivering the drug solution intravenously—a dilute ethanol solution (usually 8%–12% v/v) is delivered into a receptacle located near the lever or nose-poke orifice, where the animal can consume it orally. However, because of the aversive orosensory nature of ethanol, many researchers often initially train animals to consume alcohol solutions sweetened with sucrose or saccharin to increase its palatability. Then, slowly over a period of weeks, the concentration of the sweetener is gradually reduced until eventually the animal performs the operant task to consume an unsweetened ethanol solution.

There are many advantages of the operant self-administration paradigm as a model for human drug-taking behavior, including: (1) the drug is administered voluntarily by the animal (as opposed to passive administration by an experimenter); (2) the drug-taking behavior can be temporally examined within and between self-administration sessions; (3) candidate therapeutic pharmacological compounds or other experimental manipulations can be administered to determine their effects on drug self-administration; (4) the number of responses that must be exerted by the animal to receive the drug can be gradually increased (called a “progressive ratio”) until the animal gives up and no longer performs the operant task (called the “breakpoint”)—this method is used to measure the level of motivation to self-administer the drug as well as the efficacy of the reinforcer, and, finally; (5) the procedure is amenable to the study of relapse-like behavior (see “Cue- and Context-Induced Reinstatement of Drug-Seeking Behavior”).

One additional advantage of operant self-administration procedures is their amenability to the study of the role of conditioned cues in the reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse. In addition to delivery of the drug, many researchers also use environmental cues such as the presentation of stimulus light, auditory tone, olfactory cue, or combinations thereof that are simultaneously paired with the intravenous delivery of the drug solution. Over successive self-administration sessions, the animal learns to associate these cues with the availability of the drug and its pharmacological effects. It should be noted that these cues act as conditioned reinforcers that are typically delivered contingent upon a lever press. Indeed, noncontingent conditioned reinforcers do not elicit an increase in motivated behavior. Stimuli can also act as discriminative stimuli or occasion setters, which are noncontingent and involve the array of environmental stimuli that occur in conjunction with drug use. These types of stimuli modulate the response-eliciting ability of discrete conditioned stimuli paired with drug self-administration or serve a discriminatory function that predicts the availability of a drug of abuse upon the completion of a particular emitted response. Studies have shown that, for most drugs of abuse, the presence of drug-associated cues greatly increases the number of operant responses exerted per test session, compared with when the drug is self-administered in the absence of such cues (see Fig. 8.2 ). ^a

a References 17, 23, 38, 48, 54, 62, 73, 74, 80, 113.

The power of conditioned cues can also be seen in their ability to modulate intake of the drug itself in their presence or absence. Stimulus control, when instrumental behavior comes under control of a particular stimulus (e.g., a conditioned reinforcer such as a light or tone discrete stimulus), is evident by the ability of these stimuli to drive motivated behavior. Animals will respond one way in the presence of the stimulus and in a different way in the presence of another stimulus. This demonstrates the power of these stimuli to control behavior. In the self-administration model, animals are typically given short access (∼12 hours/day) to take the drug. This is believed to model maintenance of drug use rather than the dysregulated intake that occurs in human addicts. Ahmed and colleagues thus developed a model of escalated drug use that was designed to capture this dysregulation in the spiral of addiction that occurs in humans. Although it is thought that this models dysregulated drug use behavior, these data typically show a plateau of intake within the sessions. If this truly models dysregulation, in theory it should never plateau. Thus, Beckmann and colleagues designed experiments to test whether it truly is dysregulation of intake, or rather a form of learning when animals are switched from short-access (1 hour/day) to long-access (6 hours/day) sessions. In these experiments, cocaine intake came under stimulus control when a house light was illuminated on 6-hour sessions, and not illuminated on 1-hour sessions, which alternated every other day. On long-access (6-hour) days, animals showed escalation of intake, and on short-access (1 hour) days, animals showed consistent levels of intake. These experiments not only showed that animals were simply acquiring a new form of temporal discrimination learning (thus modifying intake based on acquisition of the length of session), but also that escalation (dysregulated drug intake) of drug self-administration can come under stimulus control. How can animals be dysregulated and regulated in their intake simultaneously? As well, how can dysregulated intake come under stimulus control if there is no learning mechanism involved?

Second-Order Schedules of Reinforcement

Another experimental paradigm that exemplifies the ability of drug-associated cues to exert stimulus control over behavior is the second-order schedule of reinforcement . In this paradigm, animals are initially trained to self-administer a drug of abuse intravenously (or orally, in the case of alcohol) as described in the previous section; each operant response results in drug delivery and the simultaneous presentation of a discrete cue (i.e., a light, tone, and/or olfactory stimulus). After successful training of the animal under this primary schedule reinforcement, the contingency of drug delivery upon completion of the operant task is removed, such that only the drug-associated stimulus is presented following each operant response. Thus, each lever press or nose-poke results in presentation of the drug-associated cue stimulus (secondary reinforcer) but no drug delivery (primary reinforcer). The primary advantage of this paradigm is that it allows the investigator to examine drug-seeking behavior in the absence of drug delivery, similar to the cue- and context-induced reinstatement discussed in the next section. Thus, the effect of pharmacological or neurobiological manipulations on responding for the secondary reinforcer can be performed without the potential confound of the psychoactive effects of the primary reinforcer. Acquisition of responding on a second-order schedule can be enhanced by non–response-contingent exposure to a sensitizing regimen of the drug (i.e., cocaine) following the primary reinforcement phase ( Fig. 8.3 ).

First- and second-order schedules of reinforcement. (A) In a first-order schedule of reinforcement, each correct operant response (i.e., lever-press or nose-poke) results in the delivery of the drug solution as well as simultaneous presentation of discrete drug-associated stimuli. (B) Following sufficient training on a first-order schedule of reinforcement, a second-order schedule of reinforcement can be initiated whereby each correct lever response results in the presentation of the drug-associated cue, but infusion of the drug solution is withheld until a fixed time point or the end of the test session.

However, in order to avoid the extinction of drug-seeking behavior due to the absence of primary reinforcement, a response-contingent delivery of the drug solution must be given at a fixed time interval (i.e., every 30 or 60 min) after the completion of a certain number of operant responses, or at the end of the test session. This allows the animal to receive the primary reinforcer and thus maintain the associations between the drug and responding for drug-associated cues.

Further evidence for the motivational salience of drug-associated cues lies in the fact that when animals are subject to extinction procedures (i.e., when the primary drug reinforcer is withheld in subsequent test sessions following responding under a second-order schedule of reinforcement), response-contingent presentation of the light/tone/olfactory stimulus during extinction trials results in enhanced responding and a slowing of the rate of extinction in rats trained to self-administer cocaine, suggesting that the drug-associated cues maintain their motivational salience despite the fact that the primary drug reinforcer is no longer available. This phenomenon has also been demonstrated during extinction following primary drug reinforcement. However, slowing of the rates of the extinction following second-order heroin reinforcement by response-contingent presentation of the drug-associated cues during extinction trials has not been observed, suggesting that discrete heroin-associated cues exert a lesser degree of stimulus control over behavior than those associated with cocaine.

Cue- and Context-Induced Reinstatement of Drug-Seeking Behavior

Relapse is one of the most problematic aspects in the treatment of drug addiction, as it can occur months or years following the last episode of drug intake. Fortunately animal models have been developed that appear to mimic the phenomenon of relapse in humans. The most widely used animal model of relapse is the reinstatement paradigm. ^b

b References 10, 11, 14, 35, 87, 106.

With regard to the study of the influence of conditioned cues on drug-seeking behavior, the reinstatement paradigm offers the possibility of studying two distinct phenomena. First, if the discrete conditioned reinforcers (i.e., a tone, light, or olfactory stimuli) that were presented to the animal during each drug delivery prior to extinction procedures are reintroduced to the animal in a response-contingent manner, presumably the animal expects that the drug is now available and exerts a significant increase in the number of operant responses that previously resulted in drug delivery. Alternatively, some investigators present the drug-associated cues in a non–response-contingent manner (although this does not reinstate behavior ). Regardless, this phenomenon is known as cue-induced reinstatement , and has been used extensively to study the role of discrete drug-associated cues in the control over drug-seeking behavior ( Fig. 8.4 ).

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Related posts:

1. Metabolomics in Drug Response and Addiction
2. Hoarding as a Behavioral Addiction
3. Alcohol Withdrawal : Treatment and Application
4. The Homeless

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join