preview

Conditioned Place Preference

Decent Essays

Another animal model of abuse liability that has provided much information on the behavioral effects of cannabinoids is the conditioned place preference (CPP) procedure. This procedure is based on the principles of classical conditioning and provides an indication of drug-related reward/aversion effects in animals. The rewarding/aversive stimulus properties of a drug assessed under this procedure refers to the appetitive nature of the stimulus as opposed to the ability of a drug to increase the probability of a given behavior (i.e. reinforcing effects). Although methodological details differ among laboratories, CPP procedures typically begin by allowing animals to freely explore two distinct environmental contexts within a chamber, which differ …show more content…

During conditioning sessions, a drug injection (unconditioned stimulus) is repeatedly paired with one of the two environmental contexts while access to the other context is prohibited. On alternate sessions, vehicle injections are paired with the other environmental context. On the final test day, no injections are given and the relative time spent in each environmental context is measured and the difference is taken in order to provide a measure of preference. Using this dependent variable, the CPP model has been shown to have high predictive validity in that almost all drugs abused by humans are able to increase the time spent in the drug-paired context (i.e., produce a place preference); however, many interpretations of results are limited due to the frequency of false positives and the difficulties encountered in obtaining systematic dose-response relationships over a limited range of doses (Bardo and Bevins 2000; Tzschentke …show more content…

For instance, the ability of THC and the synthetic CB1 receptor high efficacy agonist CP 55,940 to produce a positive place preference in rats and mice has been shown to depend on the timing of injections as well as on the range of doses used (Lepore et al. 1995; Valjent and 2000; Braida et al. 2001; Ghozland et al. 2002) as it does with other drugs (Bardo and Bevins 2000; Tzschentke 1998). Lepore et al. (1995) demonstrated that when a standard schedule of daily injections (i.e., vehicle, drug, vehicle, drug, etc.) before consecutive daily sessions was used, THC produced a conditioned place aversion for the compartment associated with its administration at a low 1.0 mg/kg dose but positive place preferences at higher 2.0 and 4.0 mg/kg doses. When the schedule of daily injections was changed, allowing a longer wash-out time period between drug injections (i.e., vehicle, day off, drug, day off, vehicle, day off, drug, etc.), THC produced a conditioned place preference at a low 1.0 mg/kg dose but produced place aversions at higher 2.0 and 4.0 mg/kg doses. The authors suggested that increasing the interval of time between THC injections might qualitatively change the effects of THC in this behavioral test, due to a “postdrug dysphoric rebound.” This may help to explain the

Get Access