Amphetamine self-administration by humans: modulation by contingencies associated with task performance
Abstract
The effect of task performance feedback and associated monetary earnings on drug self-administration were evaluated using eight subjects in a residential laboratory setting. The hypothesis was that if subjects believed that d-amphetamine impaired performance and reduced monetary earnings, d-amphetamine self-administration would decrease. Subjects performed computer tasks every day: on certain days that they received capsules, subjects were given bogus feedback regarding their performance ("better" or "worse" than average). On sample days, subjects were required to take d-amphetamine (10 mg BID) or placebo (0 mg BID) capsules. On choice days, subjects could choose between either d-amphetamine or placebo. Subjects received feedback on their task performance on 2 sample days and 2 of 4 choice days. Subjects received no feedback on the remaining two choice days. When subjects received no feedback, they chose d-amphetamine over placebo 78% of the time, and when they were given better feedback messages, they chose d-amphetamine 87.5% of the time. In contrast, d-amphetamine self-administration decreased significantly to 25% when subjects were told that it impaired their performance on work tasks and resulted in reduced earnings. In reality, d-amphetamine had little effect on work task performance. However, compared to placebo, d-amphetamine significantly increased subjective ratings of "Stimulated" and "Good Drug Effect" and significantly decreased ratings of "Tired" and "Sleepy." T…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Eight of 14 studies using other attention tasks reported that amphetamine improves attention.
“Eight of the 14 studies reported that AMP improves attention (Asghar et al., 2003; Barch & Carter, 2005; Comer et al., 1996; Dolder et al., 2018; Servan‐Schreiber et al., 1998; Silber et al., 2006; Sofuoglu et al., 2008; Willson et al., 2004).”
From Systematic reviews of the acute effects of amphetamine on working memory and other cognitive performances in healthy individuals, with a focus on the potential influence of personality traits (2023) · cites this paper as Comer et al., 1996
Five studies did not find an effect of amphetamine on learning or memory.
“The remaining five studies did not find an effect of AMP on learning or memory (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Comer et al., 1996; Makris et al., 2007; Mintzer & Griffiths, 2003; Patat et al., 1996).”
From Systematic reviews of the acute effects of amphetamine on working memory and other cognitive performances in healthy individuals, with a focus on the potential influence of personality traits (2023) · cites this paper as Comer et al., 1996
Some studies reported a lack of AMP effects on inhibitory control, verbal memory, learning, or intelligence.
“However, other studies reported a lack of AMP effects on inhibitory control, as well as verbal memory, learning, inhibitory control or intelligence (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Comer et al., 1996; Fillmore et al., 2005; Ilieva et al., 2013; Makris et al., 2007; Mintzer & Griffiths, 2003; Patat et al., 1996)”
From Systematic reviews of the acute effects of amphetamine on working memory and other cognitive performances in healthy individuals, with a focus on the potential influence of personality traits (2023) · cites this paper as Comer et al., 1996
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The role of the brain reward system in depression
Naranjo, C. A., Tremblay, L. K., & Busto, U. E. (2001) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s0278-5846(01)00156-7 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Kassim, F. M. (2023) · Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental · doi:10.1002/hup.2856 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“…reported a lack of AMP ef- fects on inhibitory control, as well as verbal memory, learning, inhibitory control or intelligence (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Comer et al., 1996; Fillmore et al., 2005; Ilieva et al., 2013; Makris et al., 2007; Mintzer & Griffiths, 2003; Patat et al., 1996), while…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
- Authors
- Comer, S. D., Haney, M., Foltin, R. W., & Fischman, M. W.
- Affiliations
- New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
- Venue
- Psychopharmacology
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 39-46
- ISSN
- 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-2072
- OpenAlex
- W2065763048
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 0.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA003476, DA-03476)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- amphetamine self-administration, d-amphetamine, performance feedback, drug reinforcement, placebo, subjective drug effects, workplace drug use
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Amphetamine, Eating, Feedback, Female, Humans, Male, Placebos, Psychomotor Performance, Self Administration, Task Performance and Analysis
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