Cited by 153Psychedelics and Drug StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis

Reinforcing, subjective, and physiological effects of MDMA in humans: A comparison with d-amphetamine and mCPP

Tancer, Manuel, Johanson, Chris-Ellyn·2003·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is a widely used drug of abuse chemically related to both the amphetamines and mescaline. Laboratory animal studies have shown that MDMA is a potent re-uptake inhibitor and releaser of dopamine and serotonin. Although the subjective and physiological effects of MDMA have been compared to d-amphetamine in humans, no direct comparison with a serotonin releasing agent has been reported and reinforcing effects have not been evaluated. In this paper we report a direct comparison of the reinforcing, subjective, and physiological effects of MDMA (1 and 2 mg/kg) to d-amphetamine (10 and 20 mg), to metachlorophenylpiperazine (mCPP--a serotonin releasing agent (0.5 and 0.75 mg/kg)), and to placebo using a within-subject design in 12 volunteers with moderate MDMA experience. Both the high dose of d-amphetamine and MDMA showed significant reinforcing effects as indicated by high cross-over values on the multiple choice procedure compared to all other treatments. All three drugs showed dose-dependent changes in subjective effects whereas physiological effects were most pronounced for MDMA with almost no changes seen with mCPP. The subjective effects of MDMA were similar both to those of mCPP and d-amphetamine, suggesting that both dopamine and serotonin systems are involved in mediating these effects. In contrast, only the dopaminergic agents, d-amphetamine and MDMA, had reinforcing effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0376-8716(03)00172-8

Cites

53 of 53 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

5 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tancer, M., & Johanson, C.-E.
Affiliations
Wayne State University (US)
Corresponding author
Tancer, Manuel
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-10
Volume
72
Issue
1
Pages
33-44
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127854642
Cited by
153
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
8.16
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 (5 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, d-amphetamine, mCPP, serotonin release, dopamine release, drug reinforcement, subjective effects, physiological effects, dose dependence
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Dextroamphetamine, Female, Hallucinogens, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Male, Piperazines, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reinforcement, Psychology, Severity of Illness Index, Serotonin Receptor Agonists, Dopamine Agonists, Cross-Over Studies, N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, Substance-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