Cited by 203Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Effects of methamphetamine on the adjusting amount procedure, a model of impulsive behavior in rats

Richards, J. B., Sabol, K. E., de Wit, H.·1999·Psychopharmacology

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

Crossref · 10.1007/pl00005488

Cites

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?

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)
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
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