Bignami G
Section of Neurobehavioral Pathophysiology, Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Roma, Italy.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1988 Apr;29(4):771-4. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(88)90204-3.
Current models concerning the mechanisms of punishment suppression and anxiolytic drug effects fail to account for several treatment-test interactions in pharmacological studies. This applies in the first place to some important "double dissociation" phenomena. For example, in rats benzodiazepines are effective in conflict tests (Geller- and Vogel-type) but not in go-no go avoidance discriminations, while the converse is true in the case of antimuscarinics. Such a situation makes it necessary to postulate a plurality of mechanisms which can serve punishment suppression in various conditions, and can operate at least partly "in parallel" rather than "in series". In addition, different varieties of a particular test can show quite different sensitivities to the same type of agent and/or different profiles in studies using various types of anxiolytics and antagonists. This does not preclude the use of one or the other test as a convenient assay. It appears, however, that we have only limited knowledge on the mechanisms involved in the production of behavioral effects which are assumed to be typical of the anxiolytic profile.
当前关于惩罚抑制机制和抗焦虑药物作用的模型未能解释药理学研究中的几种治疗-测试相互作用。这首先适用于一些重要的“双重解离”现象。例如,在大鼠中,苯二氮䓬类药物在冲突测试(盖勒和沃格尔类型)中有效,但在去-不去回避辨别测试中无效,而抗毒蕈碱药物的情况则相反。这种情况使得有必要假设多种机制,这些机制可以在各种条件下发挥惩罚抑制作用,并且至少可以部分地“并行”而非“串行”运作。此外,在使用各种类型的抗焦虑药物和拮抗剂的研究中,特定测试的不同变体对同一类型药物可能表现出截然不同的敏感性和/或不同的反应模式。这并不妨碍将其中一种或另一种测试用作方便的测定方法。然而,似乎我们对产生被认为是抗焦虑特征典型行为效应的机制了解有限。