High Reinforcing Efficacy of Nicotine in Non-Human Primates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although tobacco appears highly addictive in humans, there has been persistent controversy about the ability of its psychoactive ingredient nicotine to induce self-administration behavior in laboratory animals, bringing into question nicotine's role in reinforcing tobacco smoking. Because of ethical difficulties in inducing nicotine dependence in naïve human subjects, we explored reinforcing effects of nicotine in experimentally-naive non-human primates given access to nicotine for periods of time up to two years. Five squirrel monkeys with no experimental history were allowed to intravenously self-administer nicotine by pressing one of two levers. The number of presses on the active lever needed to obtain each injection was fixed (fixed-ratio schedule) or increased progressively with successive injections during the session (progressive-ratio schedule), allowing evaluation of both reinforcing and motivational effects of nicotine under conditions of increasing response cost. Over time, a progressive shift toward high rates of responding on the active lever, but not the inactive lever, developed. The monkeys' behavior was clearly directed toward nicotine self-administration, rather than presentation of environmental stimuli associated with nicotine injection. Both schedules of reinforcement revealed a high motivation to self-administer nicotine, with monkeys continuing to press the lever when up to 600 lever-presses were needed for each injection of nicotine. Thus, nicotine, by itself, in the absence of behavioral or drug-exposure history, is a robust and highly effective reinforcer of drug-taking behavior in a non-human primate model predictive of human behavior. This supports the use of nicotinic ligands for the treatment of smokers, and this novel preclinical model offers opportunities to test future medications for the treatment of nicotine dependence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".