Cited by 59Psychedelics and Drug StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis

Discriminative stimulus effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in humans trained to discriminate among d-amphetamine, meta-chlorophenylpiperazine and placebo

Johanson, Chris-Ellyn, Kilbey, Marlyne, Gatchalian, Kristin, Tancer, Manuel·2006·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

In animals, two-choice drug discrimination studies have demonstrated that the behavioral effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) are mediated by dopaminergic and serotonergic systems. In order to delineate the relative role of these systems, three-choice paradigms have been used in animals, with findings indicating a more prominent role for serotonin. Human studies assessing the subjective and physiological effects of MDMA have also indicated a mixed action. To parallel animal studies, the participants in the present study were trained to discriminate among a prototypic dopaminergic agonist, d-amphetamine, a prototypic serotonergic agonist, meta-chlorophenylpiperazine (mCPP) and placebo and then were tested with two doses of MDMA. In addition, subjective and physiological effects were measured. The results demonstrated that humans could be trained to discriminate among 20 mg d-amphetamine, 0.75 mg/kg mCPP and placebo. When tested with 1.0 and 1.5 mg/kg, half the participants reported MDMA to be like amphetamine and half like mCPP. There were no clear differences between these two groups in other dimensions, although there was an indication that the individuals who discriminated MDMA as d-amphetamine were more sensitive to the effects of all the drugs. The subjective effects of all three drugs overlapped, although the effects of MDMA appeared more amphetamine-like.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.05.003

Cites

28 of 28 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

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johanson, C.-E., Kilbey, M., Gatchalian, K., & Tancer, M.
Affiliations
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Johanson, Chris-Ellyn
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-01
Volume
81
Issue
1
Pages
27-36
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976834001
Cited by
58
References
29
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k08da000370-05)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K08 DA00370)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Keywords
MDMA, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, drug discrimination, d-amphetamine, mCPP, serotonin, dopamine, subjective effects, physiological effects, drug sensitivity
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcoholism, Arousal, Dextroamphetamine, Discrimination Learning, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, Hallucinogens, Humans, Male, Piperazines, Serotonin Agents, Dopamine Agonists, N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, Amphetamine-Related Disorders

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