![]() |
|
|
Vol. 287, Issue 3, 1007-1014, December 1998
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience Program, The University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
In previous studies the repeated administration of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg of
amphetamine i.v. failed to induce psychomotor sensitization if the drug
was administered to animals living in the test environment (at home).
The same doses did induce sensitization if animals were transported to
the test environment for each drug treatment. The purpose of the
present experiment was to determine the extent to which this effect of
environment is dose dependent. Rats either lived in test cages or were
transported from the animal colony to test cages where they received an
i.v. infusion of one of five doses of amphetamine (0.125, 0.5, 1.0, 4.0 or 8.0 mg/kg) or saline each day for 5 consecutive days. Rotational
behavior was used as an index of psychomotor activation. After a 6-day
drug-free period all animals were challenged with 0.5 mg/kg of
amphetamine to determine the pretreatment dose necessary to induce
sensitization. The effect of the drug-treatment environment was to
shift the dose-effect curve for the induction of sensitization, such
that significantly lower doses were necessary to induce sensitization when amphetamine was given in a novel environment. With high doses, however, sensitization occurred regardless of environmental condition. It is concluded that the circumstances surrounding drug administration can powerfully modulate the ability of psychostimulants to induce sensitization, but this effect is dose dependent.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
F. Shen, G. E. Meredith, and T. C. Napier Amphetamine-Induced Place Preference and Conditioned Motor Sensitization Requires Activation of Tyrosine Kinase Receptors in the Hippocampus J. Neurosci., October 25, 2006; 26(43): 11041 - 11051. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. J. Catlow and C. L. Kirstein Heightened cocaine-induced locomotor activity in adolescent compared to adult female rats J Psychopharmacol, September 1, 2005; 19(5): 443 - 447. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||