Comer S D, Haney M, Foltin R W, Fischman M W
Division on Substance Abuse, New York State Psychiatric Institute, NY, USA.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1996 Sep;127(1):39-46. doi: 10.1007/BF02805973.
The effect of task performance feedback and associated monetary earnings on drug self-administration were evaluated using eight subjects in a residential laboratory setting. The hypothesis was that if subjects believed that d-amphetamine impaired performance and reduced monetary earnings, d-amphetamine self-administration would decrease. Subjects performed computer tasks every day: on certain days that they received capsules, subjects were given bogus feedback regarding their performance ("better" or "worse" than average). On sample days, subjects were required to take d-amphetamine (10 mg BID) or placebo (0 mg BID) capsules. On choice days, subjects could choose between either d-amphetamine or placebo. Subjects received feedback on their task performance on 2 sample days and 2 of 4 choice days. Subjects received no feedback on the remaining two choice days. When subjects received no feedback, they chose d-amphetamine over placebo 78% of the time, and when they were given better feedback messages, they chose d-amphetamine 87.5% of the time. In contrast, d-amphetamine self-administration decreased significantly to 25% when subjects were told that it impaired their performance on work tasks and resulted in reduced earnings. In reality, d-amphetamine had little effect on work task performance. However, compared to placebo, d-amphetamine significantly increased subjective ratings of "Stimulated" and "Good Drug Effect" and significantly decreased ratings of "Tired" and "Sleepy." These results demonstrate that d-amphetamine served as a reinforcer under conditions in which drug self-administration did not influence monetary earnings, but that d-amphetamine self-administration could be modified by feedback/monetary earnings. Thus, contingencies associated with performance have important implications for drug use in the workplace.
在一个住院实验室环境中，使用八名受试者评估了任务绩效反馈及相关金钱收益对药物自我给药的影响。假设是，如果受试者认为右旋苯丙胺会损害绩效并减少金钱收益，那么右旋苯丙胺的自我给药就会减少。受试者每天执行计算机任务：在他们收到胶囊的某些日子里，会给予他们关于其表现的虚假反馈（“优于”或“差于”平均水平）。在采样日，受试者被要求服用右旋苯丙胺（10毫克，每日两次）或安慰剂（0毫克，每日两次）胶囊。在选择日，受试者可以在右旋苯丙胺和安慰剂之间进行选择。受试者在2个采样日和4个选择日中的2个日收到关于其任务绩效的反馈。在其余两个选择日，受试者没有收到反馈。当受试者没有收到反馈时，他们78%的时间选择右旋苯丙胺而不是安慰剂，当他们收到更好的反馈信息时，他们87.5%的时间选择右旋苯丙胺。相比之下，当受试者被告知右旋苯丙胺会损害他们的工作任务绩效并导致收益减少时，右旋苯丙胺的自我给药显著降至25%。实际上，右旋苯丙胺对工作任务绩效几乎没有影响。然而，与安慰剂相比，右旋苯丙胺显著提高了“兴奋”和“良好药物效果”的主观评分，并显著降低了“疲倦”和“困倦”的评分。这些结果表明，在药物自我给药不影响金钱收益的条件下，右旋苯丙胺起到了强化物的作用，但右旋苯丙胺的自我给药可以通过反馈/金钱收益来改变。因此，与绩效相关的意外情况对工作场所的药物使用具有重要意义。
