Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In a series of experiments rats were trained and subsequently extinguished under different conditions of drug administration. High doses of chlorpromazine (5 mg/kg) or pentobarbital (20 mg/kg) were administered during the first extinction session and the dose was progressively reduced to zero over 10 successive sessions. Extinction was continued until all Ss had consistent near zero responding. When compared to saline control, chlorpromazine had no effect on total extinction responding, while pentobarbital significantly reduced total extinction responding. Ss receiving both drugs had erratic runs of responding in extinction, whereas Ss receiving saline showed a normal extinction pattern. Ss receiving pentobarbital during both training and extinction had more total extinction responding than Ss receiving only pentobarbital in extinction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barry

Etheredge

E. E.

Miller

N. E.

Counterconditioning and extinction of fear fail to transfer from amobarbital to nondrug state. Psychopharmacologia, 1965, 8, 150–156.

Bindra

Nyman

Wise

Barbiturate-induced dissociation of acquisition and extinction: Role of movement-initiating processes. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1965, 60, 223–228.

Capaldi

E. J.

Sparling

D. L.

Amobarbital vs saline extinction following different magnitudes of consistent reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 23, 215–217.

Ferster

C. B.

Skinner

B. F.

Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.

Gray

J. A.

Sodium amobarbital and effects of frustrative nonreward. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969, 69, 55–64.

Holz

W. C.

Azrin

N. H.

Ayllon

A comparison of several procedures for eliminating behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1963, 6, 399–406.

Ison

J. R.

Pennes

E. S.

Interaction of amobarbital sodium and reinforcement schedule in determining resistance to extinction of an instrument running response. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969, 68, 215–219.

Overton

D. A.

Dissociated learning in drug states (state dependent learning). In Efron

D. H.

(Ed.), Psychopharmacology; a review of progress. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Gov't Print. Off., 1968. (PHS Pub. 1836) Pp. 918–930.

Overton

D. A.

Discriminative control of behavior by drug states. In Thompson

Pickens

(Eds.), Stimulus properties of drugs. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971. Pp. 87–110.

10.

Reemer

Drug tolerance. In Mongar

J. L.

deReuck

A. U. S.

(Eds.), Ciba Foundation symposium on enzymes and drug action. Boston: Little Brown, 1962. Pp. 276–???.

11.

Terrace

H. S.

Stimulus control. In Honig

W. K.

(Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. Pp. 271–344.

12.

Ziff

D. R.

Capaldi

E. J.

Amytal and small trial partial reinforcement effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 87, 263–269.

Effects of Chlorpromazine and Pentobarbital on Pattern and Number of Responses in Extinction

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References