Conditioned place preference: What does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward?

M. T. Bardo, Rick A Bevins

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

807 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale: Among the various experimental protocols that have been used to measure drug reward in laboratory animals, conditioned place preference (CPP) has been one of the most popular. However, a number of controversial issues have surrounded the use of this experimental protocol. Objective: The present review provides a theoretical overview of some critical issues relevant to CPP. The advantages and limitations of CPP are also covered. Results: Based on modern and traditional theoretical formulations of Pavlovian conditioning, CPP appears to reflect a preference for a context due to the contiguous association between the context and a drug stimulus. Within this theoretical framework, it seems clear that CPP measures a learning process that is fundamentally distinct from drug self-administration. The main advantages of CPP are that it: (1) tests animals in a drug-free state; (2) is sensitive to both reward and aversion; (3) allows for simultaneous determination of CPP and locomotor activity; (4) is adaptable to a variety of species; (5) typically yields dose-effect curves that are monophasic rather than biphasic; and (6) has utility in probing the neural circuits involved in drug reward. The main limitations of CPP are that it: (1) is subject to interpretation based on the notion of novelty seeking; (2) is cumbersome for providing the graded dose-effect curves needed for answering some pharmacological questions; (3) is difficult to interpret when animals prefer one context prior to drug conditioning; and (4) lacks face validity as an experimental protocol of drug reward in humans. Conclusion: Despite some limitations, CPP provides unique information about the rewarding effect of contextual cues associated with a drug stimulus.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)31-43
Number of pages13
JournalPsychopharmacology
Volume153
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Reward
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Self Administration
Laboratory Animals
Locomotion
Reproducibility of Results
Cues
Learning
Pharmacology

Keywords

  • Conditioned place preference (CPP)
  • Drug abuse
  • Drug reward
  • Drug self-administration
  • Pavlovian conditioning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Conditioned place preference : What does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward? / Bardo, M. T.; Bevins, Rick A.

In: Psychopharmacology, Vol. 153, No. 1, 01.01.2000, p. 31-43.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{f28c36808f9b41b297311b39292ab6f4,
title = "Conditioned place preference: What does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward?",
abstract = "Rationale: Among the various experimental protocols that have been used to measure drug reward in laboratory animals, conditioned place preference (CPP) has been one of the most popular. However, a number of controversial issues have surrounded the use of this experimental protocol. Objective: The present review provides a theoretical overview of some critical issues relevant to CPP. The advantages and limitations of CPP are also covered. Results: Based on modern and traditional theoretical formulations of Pavlovian conditioning, CPP appears to reflect a preference for a context due to the contiguous association between the context and a drug stimulus. Within this theoretical framework, it seems clear that CPP measures a learning process that is fundamentally distinct from drug self-administration. The main advantages of CPP are that it: (1) tests animals in a drug-free state; (2) is sensitive to both reward and aversion; (3) allows for simultaneous determination of CPP and locomotor activity; (4) is adaptable to a variety of species; (5) typically yields dose-effect curves that are monophasic rather than biphasic; and (6) has utility in probing the neural circuits involved in drug reward. The main limitations of CPP are that it: (1) is subject to interpretation based on the notion of novelty seeking; (2) is cumbersome for providing the graded dose-effect curves needed for answering some pharmacological questions; (3) is difficult to interpret when animals prefer one context prior to drug conditioning; and (4) lacks face validity as an experimental protocol of drug reward in humans. Conclusion: Despite some limitations, CPP provides unique information about the rewarding effect of contextual cues associated with a drug stimulus.",
keywords = "Conditioned place preference (CPP), Drug abuse, Drug reward, Drug self-administration, Pavlovian conditioning",
author = "Bardo, {M. T.} and Bevins, {Rick A}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s002130000569",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "153",
pages = "31--43",
journal = "Psychopharmacology",
issn = "0033-3158",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conditioned place preference

T2 - What does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward?

AU - Bardo, M. T.

AU - Bevins, Rick A

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - Rationale: Among the various experimental protocols that have been used to measure drug reward in laboratory animals, conditioned place preference (CPP) has been one of the most popular. However, a number of controversial issues have surrounded the use of this experimental protocol. Objective: The present review provides a theoretical overview of some critical issues relevant to CPP. The advantages and limitations of CPP are also covered. Results: Based on modern and traditional theoretical formulations of Pavlovian conditioning, CPP appears to reflect a preference for a context due to the contiguous association between the context and a drug stimulus. Within this theoretical framework, it seems clear that CPP measures a learning process that is fundamentally distinct from drug self-administration. The main advantages of CPP are that it: (1) tests animals in a drug-free state; (2) is sensitive to both reward and aversion; (3) allows for simultaneous determination of CPP and locomotor activity; (4) is adaptable to a variety of species; (5) typically yields dose-effect curves that are monophasic rather than biphasic; and (6) has utility in probing the neural circuits involved in drug reward. The main limitations of CPP are that it: (1) is subject to interpretation based on the notion of novelty seeking; (2) is cumbersome for providing the graded dose-effect curves needed for answering some pharmacological questions; (3) is difficult to interpret when animals prefer one context prior to drug conditioning; and (4) lacks face validity as an experimental protocol of drug reward in humans. Conclusion: Despite some limitations, CPP provides unique information about the rewarding effect of contextual cues associated with a drug stimulus.

AB - Rationale: Among the various experimental protocols that have been used to measure drug reward in laboratory animals, conditioned place preference (CPP) has been one of the most popular. However, a number of controversial issues have surrounded the use of this experimental protocol. Objective: The present review provides a theoretical overview of some critical issues relevant to CPP. The advantages and limitations of CPP are also covered. Results: Based on modern and traditional theoretical formulations of Pavlovian conditioning, CPP appears to reflect a preference for a context due to the contiguous association between the context and a drug stimulus. Within this theoretical framework, it seems clear that CPP measures a learning process that is fundamentally distinct from drug self-administration. The main advantages of CPP are that it: (1) tests animals in a drug-free state; (2) is sensitive to both reward and aversion; (3) allows for simultaneous determination of CPP and locomotor activity; (4) is adaptable to a variety of species; (5) typically yields dose-effect curves that are monophasic rather than biphasic; and (6) has utility in probing the neural circuits involved in drug reward. The main limitations of CPP are that it: (1) is subject to interpretation based on the notion of novelty seeking; (2) is cumbersome for providing the graded dose-effect curves needed for answering some pharmacological questions; (3) is difficult to interpret when animals prefer one context prior to drug conditioning; and (4) lacks face validity as an experimental protocol of drug reward in humans. Conclusion: Despite some limitations, CPP provides unique information about the rewarding effect of contextual cues associated with a drug stimulus.

KW - Conditioned place preference (CPP)

KW - Drug abuse

KW - Drug reward

KW - Drug self-administration

KW - Pavlovian conditioning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034493070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034493070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s002130000569

DO - 10.1007/s002130000569

M3 - Review article

C2 - 11255927

AN - SCOPUS:0034493070

VL - 153

SP - 31

EP - 43

JO - Psychopharmacology

JF - Psychopharmacology

SN - 0033-3158

IS - 1

ER -