A pharmacological analysis of processes underlying differential responding: a review and further experiments with scopolamine, amphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD-25), chlordiazepoxide, physostigmine, and chlorpromazine

摘要: The results obtained in these experiments, and those of previous work with several active-passive avoidance tasks, show that (i) enhancements locomotor responses to no go signals can occur after scopolamine amphetamine, both an extinction a passive contingency during compounds made up the active signal stimulus from different modality; (ii) complex interactions between treatments, cues, response-reinforcement relations lead marked differences amphetamine hyperresponding unsignaled portions schedules; (iii) moderate LSD-25 disinhibition take place conditioned inhibition but not when compound contingency; (iv) occurs also chlordiazepoxide treatments; (v) physostigmine facilitation differential responding does depend on particular trials; (vi) chlorpromazine depression is nonselective one, accompanied by any increase low baseline responses. following main conclusions be drawn basis above data literature. In first place, fact depends trials, task difficulty per se , suggests mechanisms underlying response withholding contingency, respectively, are at least part separated each other, even factors appear make comparable contributions overall variance ( Frontali Bignami, 1974 ). Second, syndrome consists mainly high order treatment, sensory, given reinforcement background while have importance for compensation phenomena allow eliminate adverse consequences level. Third, definition oscillates genuine motor bias (when preparatory type used alimentary or highly prepared defensive tasks) stimulation other types outputs used, often allowing responding). Fourth, tentative alternative models required account benzodiazepine syndrome, since it cannot ascribed attenuation punishment suppression, nor reduction fear. Fifth, most parsimonious explanation remains psychomotor depression.