Haney M, Comer S D, Foltin R W, Fischman M W
Division on Substance Abuse, New York State Psychiatric Institute, NY, USA.
Behav Pharmacol. 1997 Feb;8(1):82-90.
The effect of monetary contingencies on alprazolam self-administration was evaluated in seven male volunteers living in a residential laboratory. Drug administration occurred prior to an afternoon work session (13.00 h), and at the onset of an evening recreation period (17.30 h). On 'sample' days, participants were administered placebo or alprazolam (0.75 mg), and at the end of the afternoon work session, were told whether their task performance was 'better' or 'worse' than average. If they received 'better' feedback they earned $55, and if they received 'worse' feedback, they earned $15. On 'choice' days, participants chose to self-administer either alprazolam or placebo, with feedback occurring on two of the four choice days. Feedback was not actually linked to performance, but instead was pre-programmed. For one week, alprazolam administration was always associated with 'better' feedback on sample and choice days, and in the other week was associated with 'worse' feedback. When no feedback was delivered, alprazolam was self-administered equally often in the afternoon (57%) and evening (71%). When feedback was delivered, it significantly influenced the choice to self-administer alprazolam in the afternoon. 'Better than average' feedback resulted in alprazolam self-administration 57% of the time, but alprazolam self-administration decreased to 14% when it was associated with 'worse than average' feedback and reduced earnings. A similar pattern of effects has been reported for d-amphetamine. Thus, the self-administration of either a stimulant or a minor tranquilizer is significantly reduced when it is associated with a consequent loss of an alternative reinforcer, in this case money.
在居住式实验室中,对7名男性志愿者评估了金钱意外情况对阿普唑仑自我给药的影响。药物给药在下午工作时段(13:00)之前以及晚上娱乐时段开始时(17:30)进行。在“样本”日,参与者服用安慰剂或阿普唑仑(0.75毫克),在下午工作时段结束时,告知他们的任务表现是“优于”还是“劣于”平均水平。如果他们收到“优于”反馈,可赚取55美元;如果收到“劣于”反馈,则赚取15美元。在“选择”日,参与者选择自我服用阿普唑仑或安慰剂,在四个选择日中的两个进行反馈。反馈实际上与表现无关,而是预先设定好的。在一周时间里,阿普唑仑给药在样本日和选择日总是与“优于”反馈相关联,而在另一周则与“劣于”反馈相关联。当不提供反馈时,阿普唑仑在下午(57%)和晚上(71%)的自我给药频率相同。当提供反馈时,它显著影响了下午自我服用阿普唑仑的选择。“优于平均水平”的反馈导致阿普唑仑自我给药的时间为57%,但当与“劣于平均水平”的反馈及收入减少相关联时,阿普唑仑自我给药降至14%。对于右旋苯丙胺也报告了类似的效应模式。因此,当与随之而来的替代强化物(在此为金钱)损失相关联时,兴奋剂或小剂量镇静剂的自我给药会显著减少。