Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19045940›Full record

ArticleBehavioral neuroscience2008

Re-examination of amphetamine-induced conditioned suppression of tastant intake in rats: the task-dependent drug effects hypothesis.

Andrew Chih Wei Huang, Sigmund Hsiao

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral neuroscience, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Conditioned taste aversion, drugs of abuse and palatability.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2014
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrew Chih Wei HuangDepartment of Psychology, Fo Guang University, Koshiong, Taiwan. chweihuang@mail.fgu.edu.tw
Sigmund Hsiao

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study reexamined Grigson's reward comparison hypothesis (1997), which claimed to have resolved the paradox of addictive, rewarding drugs manifesting an aversive effect in the conditioned taste aversion (CTA) paradigm. Here, the authors compared the conditioned suppression effects of lithium chloride (LiCl) and amphetamine in a series of three experiments. In Experiment 1, the concentrations of saccharin solution (conditioned stimulus [CS]) and the doses of amphetamine or LiCl (unconditioned stimulus [US]) were manipulated. In Experiment 2, the effects of employing backward versus forward pairings of the CS and US were compared. Finally, in Experiment 3, the additivity of amphetamine's reward property and LiCl's aversive property was examined. The results of these experiments, respectively, indicated that: (1) manipulating saccharin solution concentrations does not distinguish the suppression effect caused by rewarding or aversive effects when amphetamine or LiCl served as the US; (2) both backward and forward pairings produced suppression of saccharin solution intake regardless of whether amphetamine or LiCl was used as the US; and (3) combining amphetamine and LiCl did not diminish the suppression effect, as would be expected if they had opposing mechanisms for the effects; instead, an additive effect occurred. Taken together, these results suggest that the drug of abuse amphetamine and the emetic drug LiCl both possess aversive properties in the CTA paradigm. No rewarding effects of amphetamine were detected in our experimental data. In all, our results do not support the Grigson's reward comparison hypothesis (1997) and a new "task-dependent drug effects hypothesis" is proposed.

Indexed as

Inhibition, PsychologicalPsychological TheoryAmphetamineAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsAntimanic AgentsAvoidance LearningBehavior, AnimalCentral Nervous System StimulantsConditioning, ClassicalDose-Response Relationship, DrugFood DeprivationFood PreferencesLithium ChlorideMaleRatsAmphetamineAntimanic AgentsCentral Nervous System StimulantsLithium ChlorideSaccharinSweetening Agents

Identifiers

PMID19045940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.