The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The reinforcing and subjective effects of morphine in post-addicts: a dose-response study.
Abstract
The reinforcing and subjective effects of morphine were determined in five human volunteers with histories of i.v. heroin abuse. Subjects responded under a second-order schedule of i.m. injection. Under this schedule, every 100 lever presses produced a brief stimulus light [fixed ratio (FR) 100:s]; the 30th completion of the FR 100 requirement turned on the light for 15 min and the subject received an i.m. injection of morphine [FR 30 (FR 100:s)]. Once each weekday morphine or placebo was available under this schedule. Each drug dose was available for 1 week. Under these conditions placebo did not maintain responding; 3.75 mg of morphine maintained responding in four of five subjects, and higher morphine doses (7.5, 15 and 30 mg) maintained responding in all five subjects. Subjective effects were measured concurrently: these included measures of drug liking, the Morphine Benzedrine Group scale of the Addiction Research Center Inventory, drug detection and identification. Subjects did not report subjective effects different from placebo for the lowest dose of morphine; the intermediate doses of morphine produced inconsistent effects, and the highest dose of morphine occasioned reports of drug liking and "dope" identifications. These results indicate that there can be a significant dissociation of the reinforcing and the subjective effects of opioids, which has implications for theories of opioid abuse, particularly those assuming that the reinforcing effects are causally related to the euphoric effects of opioids. Furthermore, these results confirm that measures of reinforcing effects and measures of subjective effects do not necessarily lead to identical predictions when used to assess the liability for abuse of a substance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957) · doi:10.1037/10627-000 · Cited by 4,894
Cited by
The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction
Robinson, T. (1993) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-p · Cited by 7,346
What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(98)00019-8 · Cited by 4,127
Dopamine, learning and motivation.
Wise, R. A. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1406 · Cited by 3,379
Food reward: brain substrates of wanting and liking
Berridge, K. C. (1996) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/0149-7634(95)00033-b · Cited by 1,901
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/s0166-2236(03)00233-9 · Cited by 1,869
Metadata
- Authors
- Lamb, R. J., Preston, K. L., Schindler, C. W., Meisch, R. A., Davis, F., Katz, J. L., Henningfield, J. E., & Goldberg, S. R.
- Venue
- The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1991-12
- Volume
- 259
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1165-1173
- ISSN
- 0022-3565 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1959200075
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The reinforcing and subjective effects of morphine in post-addicts: a dose-response study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-3565(25)20504-3
- The paper
- Lamb, R. J., Preston, K. L., Schindler, C. W., Meisch, R. A., Davis, F., Katz, J. L., Henningfield, J. E., & Goldberg, S. R. (1991). The reinforcing and subjective effects of morphine in post-addicts: a dose-response study. The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3565(25)20504-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.