Objectives1_AF

docx

School

California State University, Los Angeles *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5010

Subject

Chemistry

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by DrCrow16733

Report
Alicia Flores Objectives 1 Siegel (1997) 1. “A frequent finding is that pharmacological conditioned responses are opposite in direction to the unconditioned responses of the drugs upon which they are based. Thus, if blood sugar level is repeatedly increased by administrations of epinephrine or glucose, the administration procedure not followed by the hyperglycemic agent leads to a decrease in blood sugar” (Seigel, 1997, p. 2). Given this example, what is the unconditioned stimulus (US or UCS), the conditioned stimulus, the unconditioned response, and the conditioned response? (See Pierce et al., 2023, for additional information). Unconditioned Stimulus: Drug administration procedure Conditioned Stimulus: Administration of epinephrine Unconditioned Response: Blood sugar decreases Conditioned Response: Blood sugar increases 2. In Seigel (1997), what was the dependent variable in Experiment 1 and how was it measured? The dependent variable in Experiment 1 was the rats’ level of pain tolerance. Level of pain tolerance was measured using a version of Randall and Selitto’s paw- pressure analgesiometer, which applies increasing pressure to a rat’s paw. 3. What was the purpose of Experiment 1 in Seigel (1997)? The purpose of Experiment 1 was to confirm the reliability of earlier findings that morphine tolerance gradually increases/pain tolerance decreases due to the effects of extinction, when using a different analgesic assessment. To see if rats can be conditioned to elicit 4. In Experiment 1 of Seigel (1997), what was the difference between Group M-REST- M and Group M-P-M in terms of the procedures? In terms of procedure, a difference in treatment occurred during the 12-day interval between morphine sessions 6 and 7. Group M-REST-M were left undisturbed in their home cages during this interval, whereas Group M-P-M received daily placebo tests where they were injected with saline and their analgesia level was assessed. 5. During the second series of Experiment 1 of Seigel (1997), how did the results of Group M-REST-M and Group M-P-M differ in terms of their paw-withdrawal threshold? During the second series of Experiment 1 the M-REST-M group continued to show a low paw-withdrawal threshold, whereas Group M-P-M began showing a high paw-withdrawal threshold. (higher tolerance to pain) 6. What was the purpose of Experiment 2 in Seigel (1997)? The purpose of Experiment 2 was to investigate whether extinction (placebos given) establishes tolerance.
Alicia Flores Objectives 1 7. In Experiment 2 of Seigel (1997), what was the difference between Group M-REST- M and Group M-P-M in terms of the procedures? In terms of procedure, a difference between both groups happened on day 2 of morphine injections. Group M-REST-M were left undisturbed in their home cages, whereas Group M-P-M received 4 placebo sessions, but no analgesia measurement. During this time, rats were placed on the analgesiometer with the noise of the motor occurring, but no pressure being applied. 8. During the second morphine administration of Experiment 2 of Seigel (1997), how did the results of Group M-REST-M and Group M-P-M differ in terms of their paw- withdrawal threshold? (Hint: what happened at 45 min) In terms of paw-withdrawal threshold, after 45 minutes, Group M-P-M’s paw- withdrawal threshold was higher (significantly less sensitive to paw-pressure stimulation) than Group M-Rest-M’s. 9. In Seigel (1997), what was the dependent variable in Experiment 3 and how was it measured? The dependent variable in Experiment 3 was the rat’s pain sensitivity. This dependent variable was measured by the rat being placed on a testing surface (hot plate) for 30 seconds and noting how much time passes before the rat reacts (jumping and paw licking). 10. What was the purpose of Experiment 3 of Seigel (1997)? The purpose of Experiment 3 was to investigate if pre-exposure to administration ritual (before pairing) would delay the development of tolerance. 11. In Experiment 3 of Seigel (1997), what was the difference between Group 18P and Group 1P in terms of the procedures? In terms of procedure, the difference between Group 18P and Group 1P occurred during the pre-exposure phase. Group 18P received 18 pre-exposure cues and were then taken into the testing room and placed on the hot plate. Group 1P only received one pre- exposure cue and were left undisturbed for 17 days before receiving it. 12. In Experiment 3 of Seigel (1997), how did the results between Group 18P and Group 1P differ? In experiment 3, the results between both groups in the pre-exposure phase were different because the subjects’ response time in Group 1P was significantly longer than that of the last preexposure session for Group 18P. During the tolerance acquisition phase, high response delays occurred for the first administration of the injection however, when these delays decreased, the decrease was more rapid for Group 1P than for Group 18P. (more exposure to rituals slows more tolerance) 13. What was the purpose of Experiment 4 of Seigel (1997)?
Alicia Flores Objectives 1 The purpose of Experiment 4 was to investigate if partial pairing schedule, paired with pre-exposure to administration cues, would also delay the development of tolerance. (How often does pairing have to occur? 100% or 25%) 14. In Experiment 4 of Seigel (1997), what was the difference between Group CRF and Group PRF in terms of the procedures? In terms of procedure, these two groups received different levels of reinforcement and different treatment. Group CRF received a continuous pairing schedule, and when they did not receive an injection, they were left undisturbed in their home cages. Group PRF received partial reinforcement (25% schedule), and on each day in between drug administrations, received saline injections and pre-exposure cues. 15. In Experiment 4 of Seigel (1997), how did the results differ across Group CRF and Group PRF? When referring to the results of experiment 4, Group PRF, which had more experience with administration cues, differed from Group CRF because they were slower to respond to the heat (increased pain tolerance). Tolerance was quicker in group CRF (who received no pre-exposure) than in Group PRF (pre-exposure given).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help