Locomotor activity in a novel environment predicts both responding for a visual stimulus and self-administration of a low dose of methamphetamine in rats

There is evidence that visual stimuli used to signal drug delivery in self-administration procedures have primary reinforcing properties, and that drugs of abuse enhance the reinforcing properties of such stimuli. Here, we explored the relationships between locomotor activity, responding for a visual stimulus, and self-administration of methamphetamine (METH). Rats were classified as high or low responders based on activity levels in a novel locomotor chamber and were subsequently tested for responding to produce a visual stimulus followed by self-administration of a low dose of METH (0.025 mg/kg/infusion) paired with the visual stimulus. High responder rats responded more for the visual stimulus than low responder rats indicating that the visual stimulus was reinforcing and that operant responding for a visual stimulus has commonalities with locomotor activity in a novel environment. Similarly, high responder rats responded more for METH paired with a visual stimulus than low responder rats. Because of the reinforcing properties of the visual stimulus, it was not possible to determine if the rats were responding to produce the visual stimulus, METH or the combination. We speculate that responding to produce sensory reinforcers may be a measure of sensation seeking. These results indicate that visual stimuli have unconditioned reinforcing effects which may have a significant role in acquisition of drug self-administration, a role that is not yet well understood.     

Habituation and the reinforcing effectiveness of visual stimuli

The term "sensory reinforcer" has been used to refer to sensory stimuli (e.g. light onset) that are primary reinforcers in order to differentiate them from other more biologically important primary reinforcers (e.g. food and water). Acquisition of snout poke responding for a visual stimulus (5s light onset) with fixed ratio 1 (FR 1), variable-interval 1min (VI 1min), or variable-interval 6min (VI 6min) schedules of reinforcement was tested in three groups of rats (n=8/group). The VI 6min schedule of reinforcement produced a higher response rate than the FR 1 or VI 1min schedules of visual stimulus reinforcement. One explanation for greater responding on the VI 6min schedule relative to the FR 1 and VI 1min schedules is that the reinforcing effectiveness of light onset habituated more rapidly in the FR 1 and VI 1min groups as compared to the VI 6min group. The inverse relationship between response rate and the rate of visual stimulus reinforcement is opposite to results from studies with biologically important reinforcers which indicate a positive relationship between response and reinforcement rate. Rapid habituation of reinforcing effectiveness may be a fundamental characteristic of sensory reinforcers that differentiates them from biologically important reinforcers, which are required to maintain homeostatic balance.