Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differential effects of novelty exposure on place preference conditioning to amphetamine and its oral consumption

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rationale

Sensation/novelty seeking is frequently observed in drug abusers. Rats with high locomotor activity in response to inescapable novelty may be more prone to drug addiction. However, it is not clear whether this response to novelty represents reactivity to the novelty-induced stress or seeking for novelty.

Objectives

We have compared the influence of the response to novelty—presented in a forced stressful or in a free choice non-stressful manner—on vulnerability to addictive properties of amphetamine.

Methods

Wistar rats were selected according to their (i) reactivity to inescapable novelty and (ii) novelty preference. For this purpose, animals were exposed during two 30-min sessions, 24 h apart, to the same compartment; their motor activity during the first session was used as an index of reactivity. On the third day, they were allowed to choose between this "familiar" environment and a novel one. Rewarding properties of amphetamine (0.2–3.2 mg/kg, s.c.) were determined by place conditioning. Amphetamine oral consumption (10–50 mg/l) in a free-choice paradigm was measured over a period of 32 days.

Results

Reactivity to novelty and novelty preference were not correlated. Reactivity to inescapable novelty predicted place conditioning induced by the lowest dose of amphetamine, whereas preference for novelty did not. High responders to inescapable novelty consumed less amphetamine than low responders. Novelty preference was positively correlated to amphetamine oral consumption only at the lowest concentration.

Conclusions

Reactivity to inescapable novelty and novelty preference represent different behavioural components, which are related differentially with amphetamine place conditioning and its oral consumption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bardo MT, Bevins RA (2000) Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward? Psychopharmacology 153:31–43

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bardo MT, Donohew RL, Harrington NG (1996) Psychobiology of novelty-seeking and drug-seeking behavior. Behav Brain Res 77:23–43

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bevins RA, Klebaur JE, Bardo MT (1997) Individual differences in response to novelty, amphetamine-induced activity and drug discrimination in rats. Behav Pharmacol 8:113–123

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradberry CW, Gruen RJ, Berridge CW, Roth RH (1991) Individual differences in behavioral measures: correlations with nucleus accumbens dopamine measured by microdialysis. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 39:877–882

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carr GD, Fibiger HC, Phillips AG (1989) Conditioned place preference as a measure of drug reward. In: Liebman JM, Cooper SJ (eds) The neuropharmacological basis of reward. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 264–319

  • Cools AR, Gingras MA (1998) Nijmegen high and low responders to novelty: a new tool in the search after the neurobiology of drug abuse liability. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 60:151–159

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cools AR, Ellenbroek BA, Gingras MA, Engbersen A, Heeren D (1997) Differences in vulnerability and susceptibility to dexamphetamine in Nijmegen high and low responders to novelty: a dose–effect analysis of spatio-temporal programming of behaviour. Psychopharmacology 132:181–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellu F, Mayo W, Piazza PV, Le Moal M, Simon H (1993) Individual differences in behavioral responses to novelty in rats. Possible relationship with the sensation-seeking trait in man. Person Individ Diff 15:411–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erb SM, Parker LA (1994) Individual differences in novelty-induced activity do not predict strength of amphetamine-induced place conditioning. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 48:581–586

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Exner M, Clark D (1993) Behavior in novel environment predicts responsiveness to d-amphetamine in the rat: a multivariate approach. Behav Pharmacol 4:47–56

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro TN, Golden GT, Berretini WH, Gottheil E, Yang CH, Cuppels GR, Vogel WH (2000) Cocaine intake by rats correlates with cocaine-induced dopamine changes in the nucleus accumbens shell. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 66:397–401

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gong W, Neill DB, Justice JB (1996) Locomotor response to novelty does not predict cocaine place preference conditioning in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 53:191–196

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heyne A, Wolffgramm J (1998) The development of addiction to d-amphetamine in an animal model: same principles as for alcohol and opiate. Psychopharmacology 140:510–518

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman DC (1989) The use of place conditioning in studying the neuropharmacology of drug reinforcement. Brain Res Bull 23:373–387

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks MS, Kalivas PW (1995) The role of mesoaccumbens-pallidal circuitry in novelty-induced behavioral activation. Neuroscience 64:587–597

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks MS, Jones GH, Smith AD, Neill DB, Justice JB Jr (1991a) Individual differences in locomotor activity and sensitization. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 38:467–470

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks MS, Jones GH, Smith AD, Neill DB, Justice JB Jr (1991b) Response to novelty predicts the locomotor and nucleus accumbens dopamine response to cocaine. Synapse 9:121–128

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks MC, Juncos JL, Justice JB Jr, Meiergerd SM, Povlock SL, Schenk JO, Kalivas PW (1994) Individual locomotor response to novelty predicts selective alterations in D1 and D2 receptors and mRNAs. J Neurosci 14:6144–6152

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klebaur JE, Bardo MT (1999) Individual differences in novelty seeking on the playground maze predict amphetamine-conditioned place preference. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 63:131–136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klebaur JE, Bevins RA, Segar TM, Bardo MT (2001) Individual differences in behavioural responses to novelty and amphetamine self-administration in male and female rats. Behav Pharmacol 12:267–275

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kongyingyoes B, Jänicke B, Coper H (1988) The influence of brain catecholamines on 'drug-taking behavior' relative to oral self-administration of d-amphetamine by rats. Drug Alcohol Depend 22:223–233

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koob GF (1992) Drugs of abuse: anatomy, pharmacology and function of reward pathways. Trends Pharmacol Sci 13:177–184

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kosten TA, Miserendino MJ (1998) Dissociation of novelty- and cocaine-conditioned locomotor activity from cocaine place conditioning. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 60:785–791

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kosten TA, Ball SA, Rounsaville BJ (1994) A sibling study of sensation seeking and opiate addiction. J Nerv Ment Dis 182:284–289

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuczenski R, Segal DS (1997) Effects of methylphenidate on extracellular dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine: comparison with amphetamine. J Neurochem 68:2032–2037

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunin D, Gaskin S, Borjas MB, Smith BR, Amit Z (2001) Differences in locomotor response to an inescapable novel environment predict sensitivity to aversive effects of amphetamine. Behav Pharmacol 12:61–67

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Le Pen G, Duterte-Boucher D, Costentin J (1996) Place conditioning with cocaine and the dopamine uptake inhibitor GBR12783. Neuroreport 7:2839–2842

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Le Pen G, Duterte-Boucher D, Costentin J (1998a) Sensitization to the rewarding effects of the specific dopamine uptake inhibitor GBR12783. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 286:688–696

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Le Pen G, Duterte-Boucher D, Daoust M, Costentin J (1998b) Pre-exposure to alcohol does not sensitize to the rewarding effects of cocaine. Neuroreport 9:2887–2891

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Misslin R, Cigrang M (1986) Does neophobia necessarily imply fear or anxiety? Behav Process 42:45–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker LA (1995) Rewarding drugs produce taste avoidance but not taste aversion. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 19:143–151

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pederson W (1991) Mental health, sensation seeking and drug use patterns: a longitudinal study. Br J Addict 86:195–204

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piazza PV, Deminiere JM, Le Moal M, Simon H (1989) Factors that predict individual vulnerability to amphetamine self-administration. Science 245:1511–1513

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piazza PV, Maccari S, Deminière JM, Le Moal M, Mormède P, Simon H (1991) Corticosterone levels determine individual vulnerability to amphetamine self-administration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88:2088–2092

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinet PM, Rowlett JK, Bardo MT (1998) Individual differences in novelty-induced activity and the rewarding effects of novelty and amphetamine in rats. Behav Process 44:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Rev 18:247–291

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stolerman IP, Kumar R, Steinberg H (1971) Development of morphine dependence in rats: lack of effect of previous ingestion of other drugs. Psychopharmacology 20:321–336

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tzschentke TM (1998) Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference paradigm: a comprehensive review of drug effects, recent progress and new issues. Prog Neurobiol 56:613–672

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Kooy D (1987) Place conditioning: a simple and effective method for assessing the motivational properties of drugs. In: Bozarth MA (ed) Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 229–240

  • Wills TA, Vaccaro D, McNamara G (1994) Novelty seeking, risk taking, and related constructs as predictors of adolescent substance use: an application of Cloninger theory. J Subst Abuse 6:1–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman M (1996) Sensation seeking. In: Costello CG (ed) Personality characteristics of the personality disordered. Wiley, New York, pp 289–316

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from MILDT/INSERM (contract MILDT n° 96C09) and Conseil Régional de Haute Normandie.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unité de Neuropsychopharmacologie Expérimentale, UMR 6036 CNRS, IFRMP 23, Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie de Rouen, 22 Boulevard Gambetta, 76000 , Rouen, France

    Y. Pelloux, J. Costentin & D. Duterte-Boucher

Authors
  1. Y. Pelloux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Costentin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Duterte-Boucher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Duterte-Boucher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pelloux, Y., Costentin, J. & Duterte-Boucher, D. Differential effects of novelty exposure on place preference conditioning to amphetamine and its oral consumption. Psychopharmacology 171, 277–285 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-003-1584-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-003-1584-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation