Cited by 116Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Bilateral intra-accumbens self-administration ofd-amphetamine: Antagonism with intra-accumbens SCH-23390 and sulpiride

Phillips, Gavin D., Robbins, Trevor W., Everitt, Barry J.·1994·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

The efficacy of d-amphetamine to support a selective bilateral intra-accumbens self-administration response was examined. Bilateral intra-accumbens infusions of d-amphetamine were made contingent upon the acquisition of a lever-pressing response. Two identical levers were available within the operant chamber. Depression of the drug lever resulted in the intra-accumbens delivery of 1 microgram d-amphetamine; responses upon the second, control lever were recorded but had no programmed consequences. Animals were not 'primed' with non-contingent infusions of d-amphetamine at any time during these experiments. Nonetheless, animals readily acquired a selective response upon the drug lever. Removal of the d-amphetamine moiety from the infusate resulted in a large decline in responding, and the abolition of the selectivity of the response for the drug lever. Adulteration of the infusate with either the D1 dopamine receptor antagonist SCH-23390 or the D2 dopamine receptor antagonist sulpiride enhanced the rate of response selectively upon the drug lever. Reductions in the dose of d-amphetamine also increased the rate of response. The effect of co-adulteration of the infusate with both SCH-23390 and sulpiride together was purely additive. The implications of these data for the methodology of intracranial drug self-administration, and the relationship between D1 and D2 dopamine receptors within the nucleus accumbens are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02249339

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phillips, G. D., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J.
Affiliations
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
1994-04
Volume
114
Issue
3
Pages
477-485
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W1977404224
Cited by
116
References
71
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
d-amphetamine, nucleus accumbens, self-administration, dopamine D1 receptor, dopamine D2 receptor, SCH 23390, sulpiride, dopamine receptor antagonism, drug selectivity
MeSH terms
Animals, Benzazepines, Conditioning, Operant, Dextroamphetamine, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Injections, Male, Nucleus Accumbens, Self Administration, Sulpiride, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review