The effects of passive and active administration of heroin, and associated conditioned stimuli, on consolidation of object memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mode of administration (i.e., active vs passive) could influence the modulatory action that drugs of abuse exert on memory consolidation. Similarly, drug conditioned stimuli modulate memory consolidation and, therefore, acquisition and extinction of this conditioned response could also be influenced by mode of drug administration. Exploring these questions in male Sprague-Dawley rats, Study 1 assessed memory modulation by post-training 0, 0.3 and 1 mg/kg heroin injected subcutaneously in operant chambers (i.e., drug conditioned context). Study 2 asked a similar question but in rats trained to self-administer 0.05 mg/kg/infusion heroin intravenously, as well as in rats that received identical amounts of intravenous heroin but passively, using a yoked design. The period of heroin exposure was followed by repeated drug-free confinement in the conditioned context, and by sessions during which responses on the active lever had no scheduled consequences. Study 2 also included a cue-induced reinstatement session during which lever responses reactivated a light cue previously paired with intravenous heroin infusions. The post-training effects of injected/self-administered/yoked heroin, extinction and reinstatement sessions on memory consolidation were tested using the object location memory task. It was found that post-sample heroin enhanced memory in injected and yoked, but not self-administering, rats. However, post-sample exposure to the heroin cues (i.e., context or/and light cue) modulated memory equally in all groups. Taken together, these data support the conclusion that mode of administration impacts the cognitive consequences of exposure to drugs but not of environmental stimuli linked to their reinforcing effects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".