Effects of amisulpride and aripiprazole on progressive-ratio schedule performance: comparison with clozapine and haloperidol.

Clozapine and some other atypical antipsychotics (e.g. quetiapine, olanzapine) have been found to exert a characteristic profile of action on operant behaviour maintained by progressive-ratio schedules, as revealed by Killeen's Mathematical Principles of Reinforcement model of schedule-controlled behaviour. These drugs increase the value of a parameter that expresses the 'incentive value' of the reinforcer (a) and a parameter that is inversely related to the organism's 'motor capacity' (δ). This experiment examined the effects of two further atypical antipsychotics, aripiprazole and amisulpride, on progressive-ratio schedule performance in rats; the effects of clozapine and a conventional antipsychotic, haloperidol, were also examined. In agreement with previous findings, clozapine (4, 8 mg kg⁻¹) increased a and δ, whereas haloperidol (0.05, 0.1 mg kg⁻¹) reduced a and increased δ. Aripiprazole (3,30 mg kg⁻¹) increased δ but did not affect a. Amisulpride (5, 50 mg kg⁻¹) had a delayed and protracted effect: δ was increased 3-6 hours after treatment; a was increased 1.5 hours, and reduced 12-24 hours after treatment. Interpretation based on Killeen's model suggests that aripiprazole does not share clozapine's ability to enhance reinforcer value. Amisulpride produced a short-lived enhancement, followed by a long-lasting reduction, of reinforcer value. Both drugs impaired motor performance.

Comparison of the effects of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine and D-amphetamine on the ability of rats to discriminate the durations and intensities of light stimuli.

Rats' ability to discriminate durations is disrupted by the monoamine-releasing agent D-amphetamine and the 5-HT2 receptor agonist 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI). It is unknown whether this effect is specific for temporal discrimination or reflects general disruption of stimulus control. This experiment addressed this question by comparing the effects of D-amphetamine and DOI on temporal discrimination and discrimination along a nontemporal dimension, light intensity. Twelve rats responded on a schedule in which a light (intensity 22 cd/m) was presented for t seconds (2.5-47.5 s), after which levers A and B were presented. Responses on A were reinforced when t was less than 25 s, and responses on B were reinforced when t was greater than 25 s. Twelve rats responded on a similar schedule in which a light of intensity i (3.6-128.5 cd/m) was presented for 25 s. Responses on A were reinforced when i was less than 22 cd/m, and responses on B were reinforced when i was greater than 22 cd/m. Logistic functions were fitted and psychophysical parameters estimated [T50, I50 (central tendency of temporal or light-intensity discrimination); Weber fraction (relative discriminative precision)]. D-Amphetamine (0.2-0.8 mg/kg) increased the Weber fraction for temporal and light-intensity discrimination; DOI (0.625-0.25 mg/kg) increased it for temporal discrimination only. Both drugs increased T50; neither altered I50. D-Amphetamine and DOI have similar effects on temporal discrimination but different effects on light-intensity discrimination. The increase in T50 may reflect the impairment of sustained attention during prolonged stimulus presentation.

Attenuation of the effects of d-amphetamine on interval timing behavior by central 5-hydroxytryptamine depletion.

RATIONALE: Interval timing in the free-operant psychophysical procedure is sensitive to the monoamine-releasing agent d-amphetamine, the D(2)-like dopamine receptor agonist quinpirole, and the D(1)-like agonist 6-chloro-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1-phenyl-1H-3-benzepine (SKF-81297). The effect of d-amphetamine can be antagonized by selective D(1)-like and 5-HT(2A) receptor antagonists. It is not known whether d-amphetamine's effect requires an intact 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) pathway. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effects of d-amphetamine, quinpirole, and SKF-81297 on timing in intact rats and rats whose 5-hydroxytryptaminergic (5-HTergic) pathways had been ablated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rats were trained under the free-operant psychophysical procedure to press levers A and B in 50-s trials in which reinforcement was provided intermittently for responding on A in the first half, and B in the second half of the trial. Percent responding on B (%B) was recorded in successive 5-s epochs of the trials; logistic functions were fitted to the data for derivation of timing indices (T(50), time corresponding to %B = 50%; Weber fraction). The effects of d-amphetamine (0.4 mg kg(-1) i.p.), quinpirole (0.08 mg kg(-1) i.p.), and SKF-81297 (0.4 mg kg(-1) s.c.) were compared between intact rats and rats whose 5-HTergic pathways had been destroyed by intra-raphe injection of 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine. RESULTS: Quinpirole and SKF-81297 reduced T(50) in both groups; d-amphetamine reduced T(50) only in the sham-lesioned group. The lesion reduced 5-HT levels by 80%; catecholamine levels were not affected. CONCLUSIONS: d-Amphetamine's effect on performance in the free-operant psychophysical procedure requires an intact 5-HTergic system. 5-HT, possibly acting at 5-HT(2A) receptors, may play a 'permissive' role in dopamine release.