Effects of methamphetamine on the adjusting amount procedure, a model of impulsive behavior in rats
Abstract
Rationale Moderate doses of d-amphetamine (given both acutely and chronically) have been shown to decrease impulsivity in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to improve attention and learning in normal adults. In contrast, chronic doses of methamphetamine (METH) in drug abusers have been associated with increased impulsivity, and impairments in learning and attention.Objectives We report the effects of METH on an animal model of impulsive behavior.Methods Rats were tested using the adjusting amount (AdjAmt) procedure in which the animals choose between a delayed fixed (large) amount of water and an immediate adjusting (small) amount of water. In the acute METH study, rats were given a single dose of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 mg/kg METH or saline 30 min before testing. In the chronic METH study, we determined the effects of the 4.0 mg/kg dose of METH injected chronically 1 h after behavioral testing for 14 days. Thus the rats were tested using the AdjAmt procedure 22 h after injections of METH or saline.Results After 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 mg/kg METH, the rats valued the delayed large rewards more than after saline, indicating that the METH decreased impulsiveness. At the 4.0 mg/kg dose, the rats failed to respond. Rats treated repeatedly with the post-session large behaviorally disruptive dose of METH valued the delayed large rewards less than the saline-treated rats, indicating that this dosing regimen of METH increased impulsiveness.Conclusions In these experiments, the rats became less impulsive after acute non-disruptive doses of pre-session METH, whereas they became more impulsive after receiving repeated post-session injections of a dose that was behaviorally disruptive when administered acutely.
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?
Exposure to drugs of abuse has been reported to enhance impulsive-like responding in animals and humans.
“In particular, exposure to drugs of abuse has been reported to produce an enhancement in impulsive-like responding in animals (Dallery and Locey, 2005; Richards et al., 1999) and in humans (de Wit, 2009).”
From Imaging addiction: D2 receptors and dopamine signaling in the striatum as biomarkers for impulsivity (2014) · cites this paper as Richards et al., 1999
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 203
- Authors
- Richards, J. B., Sabol, K. E., & de Wit, H.
- Affiliations
- West Virginia University (US)
- ORCID
- Sabol, K. E.
- Venue
- Psychopharmacology
- Published
- 1999-10-21
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 432-439
- ISSN
- 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2114775664
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 1.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01da008588-05)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA-10588, DA-08588, R01DA010588, R01DA009133, DA09133)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- methamphetamine, impulsivity, delay discounting, reward valuation, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
- MeSH terms
- Central Nervous System Stimulants, Animals, Choice Behavior, Impulsive Behavior, Methamphetamine, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Substance-Related Disorders, 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