{"title":"Intravenous and intragastric self-administration of chlordiazepoxide in the rat.","authors":"W M Davis, T E Smith, S G Smith","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rats were implanted with intravenous (IV) or intragastric (IG) cannulas and allowed access, by lever-pressing on a CRF schedule, to chlordiazepoxide solution in 10-h sessions at doses of 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg/injection. Self-administration behavior was acquired by both routes and for all doses of the drug by 60-70% of subjects tested. Subjects given access by the IV route showed more pronounced responding at the lower 2 doses and greater drug intake with the higher 2 doses than the IG group. A 2-lever study, controlling for possible motor effects of chlordiazepoxide, supports the interpretation that responding was indeed the result of reinforcing effects of chlordiazepoxide rather than an artifact.</p>","PeriodicalId":7671,"journal":{"name":"Alcohol and drug research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alcohol and drug research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rats were implanted with intravenous (IV) or intragastric (IG) cannulas and allowed access, by lever-pressing on a CRF schedule, to chlordiazepoxide solution in 10-h sessions at doses of 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg/injection. Self-administration behavior was acquired by both routes and for all doses of the drug by 60-70% of subjects tested. Subjects given access by the IV route showed more pronounced responding at the lower 2 doses and greater drug intake with the higher 2 doses than the IG group. A 2-lever study, controlling for possible motor effects of chlordiazepoxide, supports the interpretation that responding was indeed the result of reinforcing effects of chlordiazepoxide rather than an artifact.