Biomedical subjects

Benjamin P Kowal

Publications and source records attributed to Benjamin P Kowal.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Behavioral and neuroeconomics of drug addiction: competing neural systems and temporal discounting processes.

We review behavioral- and neuroeconomic research that identifies temporal discounting as an important component in the development and maintenance of drug addiction. First, we review behavioral economic research that explains and documents the contribution of temporal discounting to addiction. This is followed with recent insights from neuroeconomics that may provide an explanation of why drug-dependent individuals discount the future. Specifically, neuroeconomics has identified two competing neural systems that are related to temporal discounting using brain-imaging techniques that examine the relative activation of different brain regions for temporal discounting. According to the competing neural systems account, choices for delayed outcomes are related to the prefrontal cortex (i.e., the "executive system") and choices for immediate outcomes are related to the limbic brain regions (i.e., the "impulsive system"). Temporal discounting provides a useful framework for future imaging research, and suggests a novel approach to designing effective drug dependence prevention and treatment programs.

Awareness↗

PubMed2006

Spontaneous recovery and dishabituation of ethanol-reinforced responding in alcohol-preferring rats.

This study examined whether habituation, a decrease in responsiveness to a repeatedly presented stimulus, occurs to ethanol reinforcers in alcohol-preferring (P) rats. Three fundamental properties of habituation were evaluated: generality, spontaneous recovery, and dishabituation. In each experiment, P rats' lever pressing was reinforced by 10% ethanol on a variable-interval 15-s schedule during 50-min sessions. Experiment 1 evaluated the generality of habituation to repeatedly presented stimuli by using ethanol and water reinforcers. Rates of responding were higher for ethanol than they were for water. Additionally, the within-session patterns of responding differed for each reinforcer, suggesting that the pattern of responding was specific to the exact nature of the repeatedly presented reinforcer. Experiment 2 examined spontaneous recovery, an increase in responsiveness to a habituated stimulus when that stimulus is not presented for a time, by separating experimental sessions by 5 min, 2 hr, or 24 hr. Early-session rates of responding during Session 2 were slower than the corresponding rates during Session 1 when sessions were separated by 5 min or 2 hr. Response rates and within-session patterns of responding during Sessions 1 and 2 were similar when sessions were separated by 24 hr. Experiment 3 tested for dishabituation, a restoration of responsiveness following the presentation of an extraneous stimulus, by presenting a tone or a light 24 min and 55 s into the session. Rates of responding temporarily increased after the tone was presented. The results of these experiments support the idea that habituation contributes to the regulation of ethanol consumption.

Alcohol Drinking↗

PubMed2005

Stimulus change dis-habituates operant responding supported by water reinforcers.

The present experiment examined whether habituation contributes to within-session decreases in operant responding for water reinforcers. The experiment asked if this responding can be dis-habituated, a fundamental property of habituated behavior. During baseline, rats' lever pressing was reinforced by water on a variable interval 15-s schedule. During experimental conditions, rats responded on the same schedule and a new stimulus was introduced for 5 min at 15, 30 or 45 min into the 60-min session. The new stimulus was extinction, continuous reinforcement or flashing lights in different conditions. Rate of responding primarily decreased within the session during baseline. Introducing a new stimulus sometimes suppressed (extinction, continuous reinforcement) and sometimes increased (flashing lights) responding while it was in effect. The new stimulus increased responding after it ended and before it was presented in the session. The results are incompatible with the idea that non-habituation satiety factors (e.g., cellular hydration and blood volume) contributed to within-session changes in responding. These satiety factors should increase with increases in consumption, decrease with decreases in consumption and remain constant with constant consumption of water. Nevertheless, all stimulus changes increased operant responding for water. These results support the idea that habituation contributes to within-session decreases in responding for water reinforcers.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Regulation of drug taking by sensitization and habituation.

The authors argue that drug taking is an operant behavior that is reinforced by the drug itself. The effectiveness of a drug as a reinforcer is modulated by sensitization and habituation to the drug as it is consumed. According to this model, drug taking stops when habituation reduces the ability of the drug to reinforce its own consumption. Drug taking resumes when spontaneous recovery restores the effectiveness of the drug as a reinforcer. This parsimonious model provides a framework for understanding many findings in the drug literature, including acute and chronic tolerance, the effect of deprivation on consumption, the contextual specificity of tolerance, polydrug abuse, cross-sensitization between stress and drugs, behavioral sensitization, priming, and reinstatement. Although this model cannot explain all aspects of drug taking (e.g., the effect of cognitive manipulations), it has many implications for understanding and controlling human drug consumption and addiction.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

Varying reinforcer duration produces behavioral interactions during multiple schedules.

The experiments tested the idea that changes in habituation to the reinforcer contribute to behavioral interactions during multiple schedules. This idea predicts that changing an aspect of the reinforcer should disrupt habituation and produce an interaction. Pigeons and rats responded on multiple variable interval variable interval schedules. Introducing variability into the duration of reinforcers in one component increased response rates in both components when the schedules provided high, but not low, rates of reinforcement. The increases in constant-component response rates grew larger as the session progressed. Within-session decreases in responding were smaller when the other component provided variable-, rather than fixed-, duration reinforcers. These results are consistent with the idea that changes in habituation to the reinforcer contribute to behavioral interactions. They help to explain why interactions do not occur for some subjects under conditions that produce them for others. Finally, the results question the assumption that induction and behavioral contrast are always produced by different theoretical mechanisms.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

Extinguished operant responding shows stimulus specificity.

The experiment tested for stimulus specificity in extinguished operant responding. Eight pigeons pecked keys for food reinforcers delivered by a variable interval (VI) 60-s schedule. The key was illuminated with red light during some sessions and white light during others. Then, responding was placed on extinction. During some sessions of extinction, the color of the key light remained constant throughout the session (red or white). During other sessions the color changed at 30 min into the session (red to white or white to red). Response rate increased after the change of key color in extinction. If it is assumed that key color is part of the stimulus to which subjects habituate, then these results are consistent with McSweeney and Swindell's [J. Gen. Psychol. 129 (2002) 364] suggestion that responding declines in extinction partly because subjects habituate to the stimuli that support conditioned responding. Habituation is relatively specific to the exact nature of the stimulus presented. Therefore, changes in the stimulus violate stimulus specificity and restore habituated responding. The results are also consistent with other theories that attribute extinction to a reduction of stimulus control [e.g., Psychol. Bull. 114 (1993) 80; J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 16 (1990) 235], but considerations such as parsimony and testability favor the habituation hypothesis over these theories.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

The relation of multiple-schedule behavioral contrast to deprivation, time in session, and within-session changes in responding.

Pigeons' keypecking was reinforced by food on baseline schedules of multiple variable interval (VI) x VI x and on contrast schedules of multiple VI x VI y. Deprivation of food was varied by maintaining subjects at 75%, 85%, and 95% (+/- 2%) of their free-feeding weights. Positive and negative behavioral contrast were observed. The size of the contrast was not systematically altered by changes in deprivation. Positive and negative contrast were both larger later in the session than they were earlier. Within-session decreases in responding were steeper for the baseline than for the contrast schedules for positive contrast. Within-session decreases were steeper for the contrast than for the baseline schedules for negative contrast. These results were predicted by the idea that different amounts of habituation to the reinforcer during the baseline and contrast schedules contribute to behavioral contrast. The results show that contrast occurs under conditions that reduce the effect of the following component. The results support the assumption that positive and negative contrast are produced by symmetrical theoretical variables.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

The effect of rate of reinforcement and time in session on preference for variability.

Pigeons pecked keys on concurrent-chains schedules that provided a variable interval 30-sec schedule in the initial link. One terminal link provided reinforcers in a fixed manner; the other provided reinforcers in a variable manner with the same arithmetic mean as the fixed alternative. In Experiment 1, the terminal links provided fixed and variable interval schedules. In Experiment 2, the terminal links provided reinforcers after a fixed or a variable delay following the response that produced them. In Experiment 3, the terminal links provided reinforcers that were fixed or variable in size. Rate of reinforcement was varied by changing the scheduled interreinforcer interval in the terminal link from 5 to 225 sec. The subjects usually preferred the variable option in Experiments 1 and 2 but differed in preference in Experiment 3. The preference for variability was usually stronger for lower (longer terminal links) than for higher (shorter terminal links) rates of reinforcement. Preference did not change systematically with time in the session. Some aspects of these results are inconsistent with explanations for the preference for variability in terms of scaling factors, scalar expectancy theory, risk-sensitive models of optimal foraging theory, and habituation to the reinforcer. Initial-link response rates also changed within sessions when the schedules provided high, but not low, rates of reinforcement. Within-session changes in responding were similar for the two initial links. These similarities imply that habituation to the reinforcer is represented differently in theories of choice than are other variables related to reinforcement.

Animals↗