The conditioned place preference chamber is a paradigm is widely used to explore the reinforcing effects of natural and pharmacological stimuli, including drugs of addiction. Combinations of floor and wall cues are available

In this variant,  subjects are allowed to freely move between a compartment in which they were conditioned with either drug cues or neutral cues. The wall cues a (comes with maze) provide visual reinforcement

This dual chamber place preference allows for biased and unbiased conditioned place preference testing. A removable door (not shown) allows isolation into one compartment of the apparatus of the animal. Preference testing is then done by removing the door to allow the mouse to freely explore between the two compartments (as seen in the image)

  • Visual pattern inserts are sandwiched between the clear interior layer and the outer grey layer. These visual pattern inserts do not interact with the mouse directly, preserving the life of the apparatus.
  • Optional Standing Inserts (visualized) are for spatial place preference procedures. Please request separately.

Get a CPP

Request a CPP

Variations

Automated shock plates can be inserted anywhere in the CPP chamber

Automated heat plates can be inserted anywhere in the CPP chamber

Automated feeders/pellet dispensors can be inserted any point in the maze

Automated lickometers can be inserted any point in the maze

Conditioned Place Preference Bechara 1987

Conditioned Place Preference Calcagnetti 1996

Conditioned Place Preference Suzuki 1995a

Conditioned Place Preference Bienkowski 1997b

Conditioned Place Preference Spyraki 1988

Conditioned Place Preference Isaac 1989

Conditioned Place Preference Kelsey 1989

Conditioned Place Preference Shippenberg 1988b

Conditioned Place Preference Mucha 1985

Conditioned Place Preference Gong 1995

Conditioned Place Preference Hiroi 1991a

Conditioned Place Preference Bechara 1992

Conditioned Place Preference Nadar 1994

Conditioned Place Preference Stefurak 1994

Conditioned Place Preference Parker 1995

Conditioned Place Preference Olmstead 1994

Conditioned Place Preference Macky 1986

Conditioned Place Preference Tzschentke 1998

Conditioned Place Preference Hiroi 1991

Conditioned Place Preference Brown 1993

Conditioned Place Preference Mcalonan 1993

Conditioned Place Preference Kelsey 1994

Conditioned Place Preference Everitt 1991

Conditioned Place Preference Olmstead 1997

Conditioned Place Preference Olmstead 1996

Conditioned Place Preference Martin Iverson 1985

Conditioned Place Preference Nadar 1996

Conditioned Place Preference Hemby 1992

Conditioned Place Preference Carr 1983

Conditioned Place Preference Gong 1997

Conditioned Place Preference Pierce 1990

Conditioned Place Preference Shippenberg 1995

Conditioned Place Preference Rossi 1976

Conditioned Place Preference Scala 1985

Conditioned Place Preference Spyraki 1988

Conditioned Place Preference Gong 1996

Conditioned Place Preference Jorenby 1990

Conditioned Place Preference Torrella 2004

Conditioned Place Preference Alexander 1994

Conditioned Place Preference Stapleton 1979

Conditioned Place Preference Spyraki 1982

Conditioned Place Preference Shippenberg 1987

Conditioned Place Preference Schenk 1986

Conditioned Place Preference Nomikos 1988

Conditioned Place Preference Morency 1986

Conditioned Place Preference Mithani 1986

Conditioned Place Preference Lett 1988

Conditioned Place Preference Hoffman 1988

Conditioned Place Preference Dymshitz 1987

Conditioned Place Preference Bardo 1984

Conditioned Place Preference Asin 1985

Conditioned Place Preference Cador 1992

Conditioned Place Preference Leone 1987

Price & Dimensions

Sizing

Mouse

$ 1390

+ Shipping and Handling (approx $150)

  • Acrylic
  • Easy clean with 70% Ethanol
  • No odors

Rat

$ 2290

+ Shipping and Handling (approx $300)

  • Acrylic
  • Easy clean with 70% Ethanol
  • No odors

  • Total(cm): Width 46 x Depth 27 x  Height 30
  • Compartments (cm): Width 20 x Depth 18 x Height 30
  • Corridor(cm): Width 20 x Depth 7 x Height 30
  • Doors(cm): Width 8 x Height 30
  • Double walls    Grey(Exterior)/Clear (interior)
  • Total(cm): Width 86 x Depth 47 x  Height 40
  • Compartments (cm): Width 40 x Depth 34 x Height 40
  • Corridor(cm): Width 25 x Depth 13 x Height 40
  • Doors(cm): Width 10 x Height 40
  • Double walls    Grey(Exterior)/Clear (interior)

CPP Introduction

1. Introduction

The conditioned place preference (CPP) is a widely used behavioral model which can evaluate the motivational properties such as the rewarding and aversive effects of drugs and natural substances as well (Suzuki 1999). Furthermore, it has been used to study the neural mechanism underlying the conditioned reward. For long, the rewarding properties of drugs were assessed by the conventional self-administration method. In the late 70’s, CPP paradigm revolutionized the methodological procedure to evaluate the motivational properties of drugs to compensate the methodological and interpretative ambiguities associated with the self-administration model. Since then, CPP has become one of the most frequently used models even surpassing the conventional self-administration method. Most importantly, it has opened avenues for understanding the neural mechanism of rewarding and aversive effects of drug substances, and for screening drugs for abuse liability.

In place conditioning tasks, animals are introduced to an apparatus having two distinct chambers, either through a doorway or smaller connecting chamber. Distinctions are made between these two chambers based on visual and tactile cues, including wall color and floor texture, but in some cases, other elements such as olfactory cues may also be used.

Subsequently, the affective state of the rodents is altered by the administration of a drug, or change in a physiological state. On alternate days, the drug or physiological state is paired with the other environment. After this conditioning trail, the animals are free to explore all the chambers, and they may depict an increase or decrease in the time spent in the chamber that was previously conditioned with the drug substance. A conditioned place preference (CPP) is said to occur if the animals spend considerably more time in the drug-paired compartment than the vehicle-paired compartment. This shift in preference may be attributed to the rewarding properties of the drug substances or the physiological situation that has evoked an approach response (Schechter & Calcagnetti 1993).

On the other hand, if the animals spend considerably longer time in the vehicle-paired compartment rather than the drug-treated compartment, then this is considered a conditioned place aversion (CPA). This reduced time spent in the drug conditioned chamber may be attributed to the aversive properties of the drug substances or the physiological situation that has evoked an avoidance response.  Usually, drugs of abuse like ethanol, cocaine produce CPP; while other drugs that elicit aversive effects, such as lithium chloride, produce CPA.

In CPP, the primary stimulus (drug) serves as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS). When it is paired with a secondary stimulus (visual, tactile, or olfactory cue) which acts as a conditioned stimulus (CS), an approach or avoidance behavior for the paired environment is elicited. Drug-induced CPP is based on the principle that when a primary reinforcer is paired with the secondary stimulus, the conditioned stimulus attains secondary reinforcing properties, which are apparently established due to a Pavlovian contingency. Interestingly, the CPP paradigm is not only restricted to drug substances, but the approach or aversive behavior can also be established using food (Bechara et.al 1992; Swerdiow et.al 1983), copulation (Miller et.al 1987), or water (Agmo et.al 1992) as primary reinforcers.

Back To Top

1.1. Precursor of the CPP task

The first ever study regarding place preference was conducted to examine the drive-reduction hypothesis of addiction learning in rodents, and Beach 1957 utilized a Y-choice maze for the procedure; an apparatus different from the modern day CPP apparatus (see section 3 for currently used CPP apparatus).

Back To Top

1.2. Similar apparatus/Task

Self-administration (SA) task

Back To Top

1.3. Major Contributions made towards the task/apparatus

Many researchers have made significant contributions toward the CPP task, and a variety of different CPP apparatus have been used for studying the rewarding properties of drugs. Some of the prominent contributors are:

  • BEACH H.D– Conducted first study discussing place preference
  • NELLO A. ROSSI and LARRY D. REID– Introduced the concept of drug-paired conditioning.
  • MARTIN D. SCHECHTER– Over 25 published papers. Also reviewed the trends in conditioned place preference in detail.
  • Christopher L Cunningham– Over 75 published studies discussing the conditioning place preference task.

Back To Top

1.4. Applications in other laboratory animals

CPP model is highly applicable, and a number of other laboratory animals beside rodents have been tested for the rewarding effects of different drugs. For example, cocaine CPP has been demonstrated in chickens (Hughes et al. 1995). Chicken’s highly evolved visual system is sensitive to color and fine detail. Hughes et al. 1995 used visual stimuli as the CS to establish the CPP. The CPP model has also been used to study the rewarding properties of nicotine and cocaine in male Japanese quail (Bolin 2012; Akins 2004)

Although originally designed for rodents, presently CPP behavior can also be evaluated in zebrafish by utilizing the Zebrafish Place Preference Test. Darland and Dowling were the pioneers of establishing the CPP behavior in adult zebrafish (Darland & Dowling, 2001). They designed the apparatus to evaluate the addictive nature of cocaine. In their model, they first recorded the baseline place preference and then confined the subjects to the least preferred compartment with exposure to cocaine for the evaluation of final place preference.

Back To Top

CPP History

3.1 Origin

The first documented work on place preference was way back in 1957. Two papers were published that year discussing place preference (Beach 1957; Garcia et. Al 1957). Beach examined the learning process under morphine addiction. He trained rats in a Y-choice discrimination box and associated one of the boxes with morphine. Although this study did not explicitly stress the rewarding properties of drugs and instrumental responses were involved, it surely had some conceptual similarities to the current versions of place conditioning methods. However, the study assessed evident place preference with morphine.

On the other hand, Garcia et.al 1957 investigated that the avoidance behavior can be produced by irradiation where conditioning criteria involve consumption. Their apparatus consisted of a straight alley (30 x 4 x 5 inches) enclosed by an acrylic lid. They divided the alley into distinct compartments with the help of a 1-inch-high acrylic divider. Each compartment was distinct in terms of visual and tactile cues. One compartment was painted flat black and had a grid floor, while the other was painted flat white and had a mesh wire floor. The alley’s base was balanced on a fulcrum, and a micro-switch was located beneath each end for data collection (Garcia et.al 1957).

These published works were followed by limited research on place conditioning as only nine papers were published during the span of 1958-1974. The currently used apparatus and procedure were established by Kumar in 1972, followed by Ross and Reid in 1976. Kumar modified the procedure by introducing the subjects in the testing chamber right after the drug incorporation (Kumar 1972). Beach and Kumar administered a high dose of daily morphine to the subjects before the CPP test, and the same high dose was also employed for CPP induction, the subject’s conditioned responses may have been elicited by the relief of withdrawal rather than the rewarding effects of the drug under study (morphine).

In 1976, Rossi and Reid developed the concept of drug-paired conditioning to measure drug induce affective state (approach or avoidance behavior) as a measure of the rewarding properties of drug substances (Bozarth 1987). They not only introduced the concept of drug-paired conditioning, but they were able to induce a conditioned response in rats at low doses of morphine productively. They used a 98 x 23 x 29 cm alley that was divided into three distinct compartments each separated by the middle compartment (8 x 23 x 29 cm) having guillotine doors on each side. The middle compartment was gray, had a solid floor, and served as a starting point for the animals during the testing procedure. On one side of the middle compartment was a black compartment with 1.3 x 2.5 cm with wire mesh floor, which they referred to as the black side. On the other side of the middle compartment was a white compartment with a 1.3 x 1.3 cm wire mesh floor, which they referred to as the white side. They claimed that the CPP paradigm could successfully access the drug’s affective consequences and the rewarding properties. (Rossi & Reid 1976)

Back To Top

3.2 Developments

Since then many studies probed the rewarding properties of different drug substances, and even natural reinforces as well. According to PubMed’s database, 3693 search results are obtained starting from 1978 to present by utilizing the search string, ‘’Conditioned place preference”, and the number is increasing is day by day (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Represents the number of published papers per year discussing conditioned place preference. The data is derived from PubMed’s database utilizing the search string “Conditioned Place Preference”. Note: 2017 YTD March 2017

The three-chamber design is the most extensively used type of CPP; other apparatuses vary from this design by having a different number of compartments (e.g., two or four compartments) and shapes. The two-compartment apparatus requires a forced choice, whereas a three-compartment area offers a central choice area between the experimental chambers. There are also paradigms designed to assess place preference within an open field (Vezina and Stewart 1987a, b), or allowing for the association of the interoceptive effects of drugs with a unique environment

Back To Top

3.3. Recent Developments

Recently, Huiwen Zhu et. al 2017 published the most recent study utilizing the CPP apparatus. They investigated the association of β-adrenoceptors (β-ARs), specifically β2-AR with drug reward mechanism and anxiety-like behavior. They employed a two- chambered, unbiased design. Each compartment had distinct wall and floor patterns.

Back To Top

CPP Apparatus and Equipment

2.1 Apparatus Design

Classically, the CPP apparatus is of two types, namely the two-chamber design or three-chamber design. The two-chamber design comprises of two discrete compartments separated by a sliding guillotine door. In the three-chamber design, two large compartments are connected by a small central compartment usually called as the neutral chamber. In contrast to the two-chamber design, the three-chamber design consists of two guillotine doors present at the entry of the two large chambers from the central chamber.  However, sliding Plexiglas doors can also be used instead of guillotine doors. The sliding Plexiglas doors can be lowered or raised to gain access to each compartment. Each chamber has characteristic visual and tactile cue, and the base of the chambers is embedded with photocell beam for automated data collection. However, the locomotor activity of the subjects can also be recorded with the help of a video tracker such as Noldus Ethovision XT. While the inbuilt automated measurement method is common, the use of non-automated means such as hand scoring is still very much possible.

Back To Top

2.1.2. Three-chamber design

During conditioning period for the two-chamber design, the subject is introduced into one of the compartment after the incorporation of the drug substance, and it is confined there for the specific period of conditioning with the guillotine doors shut. On the test day, the subject is allowed to explore both the compartments freely, and the time spent in each compartment is recorded. This data is compared with the baseline preference for the chambers to determine the final place preference (Cunningham et.al 2006).

Back To Top

2.1.3. Two-chamber Versus Three-chamber Design

The added chamber (neutral chamber) in the three-chamber design is the only physical difference between both the designs.  This neutral chamber has its advantages and drawbacks as well. Its biggest advantage is the ease it provides to the experimenters which permit them to place the subjects in the center of the apparatus; a major problem with the two-chamber design as it is difficult to place the subject in the exact center of the apparatus. Conversely, the neutral chamber gives interpretational difficulties when the subjects make an association with the neutral chamber; they may show preference or aversion for the neutral chamber instead of the other two chambers. The two-chamber design is preferred in this regard as it excludes this pitfall by leaving the subject with two possible choices for the association.

Back To Top

CPP Experimental Design

4.2 Biased Design

In the biased procedure, animals are allowed to explore the CPP chamber for several days to determine their baseline place preference between the two compartments without the administration of drug substances. Rodents have the inherent ability to prefer dark over light, so they will choose a compartment with less light every time. This preference, if significant, may confound the interpretational results. However, this problem can be alleviated by balancing the stimuli between the two compartments. For instance, by fluctuating the intensity of external light reaching the two compartments, or by changing other sensory modality that would diminish the animal’s approach such as a dab of vinegar in the dark environment (Cunningham 2003).

Using this biased design, the animals choose a less-preferred compartment and a more-preferred compartment. For conditioning procedure, the animals are paired with one of the environments; a drug thought to have rewarding (drug treatment) properties is paired with the less-preferred environment, and the control treatment is paired with the more-preferred environment. This conditioning process is repeated for some days with multiple pairings of drugs with less-preferred side and an equal number of pairings of control treatment with the more-preferred side. In order to determine the final place preference, the animals (on a control treatment) are allowed to explore all the compartments once again freely.

On the test day, if the animals spend more time in the previously less-preferred environment during their baseline preference test, it can be inferred that the drug produces rewarding properties sufficient to elicit an approach response, thus depicting a place preference.

Back To Top

4.1 Introduction to Experimental Design

The subjects are allowed to access all compartments of the apparatus for several days in order to eliminate the novelty-seeking behavior as it can be a confounding variable. CPP task, whether biased or unbiased follows the timeline of Pre-test, Conditioning, and Testing Phase. The pre-test may be separated from conditioning by 1-3 days; however, conditioning and the post-test day usually takes place on consecutive days. (Smith et al., 2016).

Back To Top

4.3 Unbiased design

In Unbiased design, the animals are trained to associate an environment with one or the other discrete state, i.e., after either drug or control treatment disregarding their initial preference of the stimulus cues present in one or the other environment. In their next session, they are trained to associate the stimulus cues of a second environment with the other condition. The design inherent in this procedure is to balance the number of subjects that receive one treatment in the first environmental pairing with the number of subjects that receive the second treatment in that first pairing. Following this design, the same subjects receive the opposite treatment on the second day of training.

The process comprises of two days that can be repeated a number of times after which the final place preference is determined by permitting the subjects to explore both environments freely. As the drug and control treatments are randomized between each of the two contexts, the choice of a preferred context during testing does not specify a bias at the time of baseline testing, which is usually seen in the biased design.

In addition, a third method can be employed, saline-injected control subjects are used to determine CPP. In this method, one group of animals is conditioned to one of the two environments, while the control group is given saline in both environments. CPP is then determined as the difference in duration spent in the drug-paired environment for conditioned animals compared to the saline-injected controls on the test day. The pre-testing phase for baseline place preference prior to conditioning may or may not be employed for this method. (Bardo et.al 1995)

Back To Top

4.4. Biased Versus Unbiased Design

The researchers have the choice to make the chambers either biased or unbiased depending upon their needs and ease. The biased design can be taken as a design in which the subjects prefer one chamber over the other during habituation. Conversely, in the unbiased design, the subjects prefer each chamber equally during adaptation. In general, the unbiased design is more advantageous as it permits researchers to determine CPP for the chamber paired with drug treatment on the test day. Furthermore, the data can be analyzed with great ease as the researcher simply notes and records differences in chamber preference as compared to the animal’s initial level of equal preference for both chambers during adaptation. (Lucke-Wold 2011)

Back To Top

4.5.1. Pre-training for CPP

The subjects are allowed to access all compartments of the apparatus for several days in order to eliminate the novelty-seeking behavior as it can be a confounding variable. CPP task, whether biased or unbiased follows the timeline of Pre-test, Conditioning, and Testing Phase. The pre-test may be separated from conditioning by 1-3 days; however, conditioning and the post-test day usually takes place on consecutive days. (Smith et al., 2016).

Back To Top

4.5.2 Pre-Test/Habituation Phase

The subjects are allowed to explore all the compartments freely. During pre-testing phase, baseline place preference is assessed and recorded. Baseline data is determined in terms of the average amount of time spent in each compartment over 3–5 days.

This procedure is same for both biased and unbiased design. The main aim of this phase is to determine the baseline place preference so that it can be exploited later. In the case of a biased design, the baseline preference will serve to determine the less and more preferred side. Conversely, for unbiased design, this baseline preference data will be used to compare results obtained after the final place preference.

Back To Top

4.6.1. Conditioning for Unbiased design

On the first day of the conditioning phase, the subject should receive drug treatment and then placed into a specific compartment for 30 minutes. On the next day, the subject should receive control treatment and place into the opposite compartment for 30 minutes. This alternate scheme of drug and control treatment should be repeated for eight days. The locomotor activity is recorded with the help of the photocells (Huiwen Zhu et.al 2017).

Back To Top

4.6.2 Conditioning for Biased Design

The subjects are initially divided into equal groups. One group should be conditioned on their non-preferred side (as determined by the baseline place preference) whereas the other group is randomly assigned to the side in which their respective conditioning should take place. All subjects from both groups are then randomly divided into groups that either receive drug or control treatment. The conditioning period for biased design is usually repeated for four days. On the conditioning day, each subject is injected with its respective treatment and confined into the pre-determined chamber for a period of 30 minutes. After the conditioning procedure, the subjects are safely removed from the conditioning chamber and placed into their home cages (Blander et.al 1984).

Back To Top

4.6.3. Testing Phase

In the testing phase, the final place preference is recorded. The subjects should be placed in the central chamber after the administration of control treatment, and allowed to explore freely for 15 to 30 minutes. This testing procedure is repeated on three consecutive days. The final place preference is recorded as a mean of the locomotor activity and the time spent in each compartment following the three testing days.

The time spent in each compartment can either be recorded manually or automatically. For the automatic collection of data, two prominent techniques i.e. the use of microswitches, or a video tracking device are employed. The latter technique involves the placement of the CPP apparatus on a fulcrum in such a fashion that the weight of a rat in one end compartment causes the microswitch to close, thus resulting in automatic time calculation. Whereas the former technique simply involves a video tracker such as Noldus Ethovision XT  to collect data. Furthermore, the base of the chambers is embedded with photocell beam for automated data collection.

Back To Top

CPP Literature Review

5.1 Evaluation of CPP and CPA

The conditioned place preference model can be used to assess both CPP and CPA. Numerous drug substances have exhibited CPP behavior in rodents such as Bupropion (Ortmann 1985), Cocaine, Cocaethylene (Schechter 1995; Kushner 1997) Cathinone (Calcagnetti and Schechter 1992a)

On the contrary, many drug substances have depicted CPA behaviors in rodents such as Naloxonazine (Suzuki et al.1993a), Citalopram, Imipramine, and Amitryptiline. (Papp 1989). See Table 1 for detailed account.

 

Table 1
Response produced byResponseCitations
Dopaminergic Drugs
AmphetamineCPPAsin et al (1985); Carboni et al (1989), Carr et al (1987, 1988); Clarke et al (1987); Costello et al (1987); Di Scala et al (1985); Gilbert et al (1983); Hiroi et al (1988); Hoffman et al (1988); Hoffman et al (1989); Kruszewska et al (1986); Leone et al (1987); Lett et al (1988); Mackey et al (1985); Mithani et al (1986); Nomikos et al (1988); Pettit et al (1987); Reicher et al (1977); Schenk et al (1986); Sherman et al (1980); Spyraki et al (1982); Spyraki et al (1988); Swerdlow et al (1984)
CocaineCPPBardo et al (1986); Issac et al (1984); Martin et al (1988); Michaelis et al (1987); Morency et al (1987); Mucha et al (1982); Nomikos et al (1988); Schenk et al (1986); Spyraki et al (1982); Spyraki et al (1985); Spyraki et al (1987)
Opoids
MorphineCPPAdvocat et al (1985); Bardo et al (1984), Bardo et al (1986)

10-12 Barr et al (1985). Beach et al (1957), Bechara et al (1985); Bechara et al (1988); Bechara et al (1987); Blander et al (1984); Carboni et al (1989); Dymshitz et al (1987); Iwamoto et al (1986); Katz et al (1979); Kelsey et al (1987), Kruszewska et al (1986), Kumar et al (1972); Leone et al (1987); 62, Mackey et al (1985); Martin et al (1988); Mucha et al (1982); Nomikos et al (1988); Rossi et al (1976); Schwartz et al (1974); Sherman et al (1980); Shippenberg et al (1987, 1988); Spyraki et al (1988); Stapleton et al (1979); Vezina et al (1987); Vezina et al (1987); Zito et al (1988)

HeroinCPPAmahic at el (1987); Bozarth et al (1987); Bozarth et al (1981); Dymshitz et al (1987); LeMoal et al (1988); Schenk et al (1985); Schenk et al (1983); Spyraki et al (1983)
NaloxoneCPAAmahic at el (1987); Bechara et al (1987); Dymshitz et al (1987); Iwamoto et al (1986); Mucha et al (1985); Mucha et al (1985); Mucha et al (1987); Shippenberg et al (1988); Spyraki et al (1985)
Miscellaneous
NicotineCPPRisinger and Oakes (1995); Calcagnetti and Schechter (1994b); Carboni et al. (1989); Acquas et al. (1989); Fudala et al. (1985); Fudala and Iwamoto (1986)
CPARisinger and Oakes (1995); Jorenby et al. (1990); Fudala et al. (1985)
EthanolCPPSchechter (1992b); Risinger et al. (1994); Risinger and Oakes (1996a,b); Cunningham and Noble (1992a); Gevaerd and Takahashi (1996); Risinger et al. (1992a,b, 1996); Risinger (1997); Cunningham et al. (1992a, 1993, 1997); Kelley et al. (1997b)

Back To Top

5.2 Evaluation of neural circuits involved in drug reward mechanism

Another favorable advantage of CPP is that it has substantial utility in scrutinizing the neural circuits involved in drug reward mechanism. For instance, microinjection of amphetamine into the nucleus accumbens produces approach response, while microinjection of amphetamine into the area postrema produces CTA (Carr and White 1983, 1986). Different reviews have demonstrated that microinjection of µ opioids into the ventral tegmental zone (VTA) produces CPP, while microinjection of κ opioids into the VTA, nucleus accumbens, medial prefrontal cortex or lateral hypothalamus produces avoidance behavior (Shippenberg and Elmer 1998). These place preference studies clearly signal that different neural circuits are involved in approach and avoidance behavior.

The CPP task can also serve to indicate the presence of lesions in rodents. For instance, lesions of NAS obstructed novelty-induced CPP (Pierce et al., 1990), and diazepam-induced CPP (Spyraki and Fibiger, 1988).  Furthermore, the lesions of the VP prevented cocaine-induced CPP (Gong et al., 1997b). See Table 2 for studies involving lesions.

 

Table 2
Lesioned regionResponse produced byResponseCitations
6-OHDA lesions
NASMorphineNo CPPShippenberg et al. (1993)
U-69593 (CPA)No CPAShippenberg et al. (1993)
DiazepamNo CPPSpyraki and Fibiger (1988)
Novel environmentNo CPPPierce et al. (1990)
CTOP (VTA) (CPA)No CPAShippenberg and Bals-Kubik (1995)
CTOP (NAS) (CPA)CPAShippenberg and Bals-Kubik (1995)
Naloxone (IP) (CPA)CPAShippenberg and Bals-Kubik (1995)
VPCocaineNo CPPGong et al. (1997b)
Olfactory tubercleAmphetamineCPPClark et al. (1990)
StriatumMorphineCPPShippenberg et al. (1993)
U-69593 (CPA)CPAShippenberg et al. (1993)
mPFCMorphineCPPShippenberg et al. (1993)
U-69593 (CPA)CPAShippenberg et al. (1993)
CocaineCPPHemby et al. (1992b)
Visceral cortexMorphineCPPZito et al. (1988)
Morphine (CPA)No CPAZito et al. (1988)
ICVMethylphenidateCPPMartin-Iverson et al. (1985)
Excitotoxic lesions
NASAmphetamineNo CPPOlmstead and Franklin (1996)
MorphineCPPOlmstead and Franklin (1997a)
SucroseNo CPPEveritt et al. (1991)
Naltrexone (CPA)CPAKelsey and Arnold (1994)
StriatumMorphineCPPOlmstead and Franklin (1997a)
FoodCPPWhite and McDonald (1993)
Striatum (ventromed.)SucroseReduced CPPEveritt et al. (1991)
Striatum (dorsolateral)SucroseCPPEveritt et al. (1991)
VPSucroseReduced CPPMcAlonan et al. (1993)
AmphetamineNo CPPHiroi and White (1993)
Amphetamine (expr.)CPPHiroi and White (1993)
MorphineCPPOlmstead and Franklin (1997a)
Amygdala (whole)CocaineNo CPPBrown and Fibiger (1993)
Amygdala (lat. nucl.)MorphineCPPOlmstead and Franklin (1997a)
AmphetamineNo CPPHiroi and White (1991b)
amphetamine (expr.)No CPPHiroi and White (1991b)
FoodNo CPPWhite and McDonald (1993)
Amygdala

(basolat. nucleus)

AmphetamineCPPHiroi and White (1991b)
Amphetamine (expr.)CPPHiroi and White (1991b)
Sucrose (expr.)No CPPEveritt et al. (1991)
Amygdala

(mediodors. nucleus)

Naltrexone (CPA)Reduced CPAKelsey and Arnold (1994)
Endopiriform nucl.AmphetamineCPPHiroi and White (1991b)
Amphetamine (expr.)CPPHiroi and White (1991b)
Ventral hippocampusAmphetamineCPPHiroi and White (1991b)
Amphetamine (expr.)CPPHiroi and White (1991b)
FornixMorphineReduced CPPOlmstead and Franklin (1997a)
FoodEnhanced CPPWhite and McDonald (1993)
MD thalamusSucroseReduced CPPMcAlonan et al. (1993)
mPFC (prelimbic)CocaineNo CPPTzschentke and Schmidt (1998b)
AmphetamineCPPTzschentke and Schmidt (1998b)
MorphineCPPTzschentke and Schmidt (1998b)
mPFC (infralimbic)CocaineCPPTzschentke and Schmidt (1998c)
AmphetamineCPPTzschentke and Schmidt (1998c)
MorphineNo CPPTzschentke and Schmidt (1998c)
CGP37849No CPPTzschentke and Schmidt (1998c)
Visceral cortexMorphineCPPMackey et al. (1986)
Lithium chloride (CPA)CPAMackey et al. (1986)
PPTgCocaineCPPOlmstead and Franklin (1993, 1994, 1997a)
Cocaine (expr.)CPPParker and van der Kooy (1995)
AmphetamineNo CPPBechara and van der Kooy (1989)
Amphetamine (expr.)CPP 
MorphineNo CPP 
Morphine (expr.)CPP 
Heroin (low dose)No CPPNader et al. (1994)
Heroin (high dose)CPPNader et al. (1994)
PPTgMorphine (IP) (in naive

animals)

No CPPBechara and van der Kooy (1992a,b);

Nader and van der Kooy (1994, 1997)

Morphine (VTA) (in

naive animals)

No CPP 
Morphine (IP) (in

dependent animals)

CPP 
Morphine (VTA) (in

dependent animals)

CPP 
Food (satiated animals)No CPP 
Food (deprived

animals)

CPP 
Morphine withdrawn in

depend animals (CPA)

CPABechara and van der Kooy (1992a)
Hunger in food-depr.

animals (CPA)

CPABechara and van der Kooy (1992a)
Saccharin solutionNo CPPStefurak and van der Kooy (1994)
PAGCocaineCPPBechara and van der Kooy (1989);
Cocaine (expr.)CPPOlmstead and Franklin (1993, 1994);
AmphetamineCPPParker and van der Kooy (1995)
Amphetamine (expr.)CPP 
MorphineCPP 
Morphine (expr.)CPP 
MorphineReduced CPPOlmstead and Franklin (1997a)
Med. parabrach. nucl.MorphineCPPBechara et al. (1993)
Morphine withdr. in

depend. animals (CPA)

No CPANader et al. (1996)
Other lesions
NAS (electrolytic)MorphineNo CPPKelsey et al. (1989)
Striatum (electrolytic)AmphetamineEnhanced CPPHiroi and White (1991a)
Medial septum

(electrolytic)

CocaineEnhanced CPPGong et al. (1995)
Mediobasal arcuateMorphineCPPMucha et al. (1985)
HypothalamusU-50 488H (CPA)CPAMucha et al. (1985)
(radiofrequency)Naloxone (CPA)reduced CPAMucha et al. (1985)
 Lithium chloride (CPA)No CPAShippenberg et al. (1988b)
Connection of sulcalmPFC self-stimulationEnhanced CPPRobertson and Laferriere (1989)
and mPFC (knife cut)Lithium chloride (CPA)Enhanced CPASchalomon et al. (1994)
mPFC (aspiration)CocaineCPAIsaac et al. (1989)
Orbital PFC (aspirat.)CocaineNo CPPIsaac et al. (1989)
Precentral PFC (asp.)CocaineNo CPPIsaac et al. (1989)
Central NA depletion

(IP DSP4)

DiazepamCPPSpyraki and Fibiger (1988)
Central 5-HT depl.Mianserin (CPA)Enhanced CPARocha et al. (1993b)
(ICV 5,7-DHT)FG 7142 (CPA)No CPARocha et al. (1993b)
Ethanol (CPA)CPABienkowski et al. (1997b)
NAS 5-HT depl.DiazepamNo CPPSpyraki et al. (1988)
(5,7-DHT)MorphineReduced CPPSpyraki et al. (1988)
 AmphetamineCPPSpyraki et al. (1988)
AdrenalectomyMorphineEnhanced CPPSuzuki et al. (1995a)
 CocaineCPPSuzuki et al. (1995a)
Olfact. BulbectomyCocaine (expr.)No CPPCalcagnetti et al. (1996)
VagotomyMorphine (low dose)

(CPA)

No CPABechara and van der Kooy (1987)
U-50 488H (CPA)CPPBechara and van der Kooy (1987)

Back To Top

5.3 Evaluation of the hereditary nature of addictive drugs

The CPP model is not only confined to testing, but it can also help to assess the hereditary nature of the addictive drugs. Schechter, 1992a produced lines of rodents through selective pairing. The parent rodents depicted weak or strong cocaine-induced CPP over three generations. Their successive line was either aversive to cocaine manifested by the little locomotor response to cocaine or strongly addicted to cocaine manifested by strong locomotor activation induced by cocaine, respectively.

 

Back To Top

5.4 Evaluation of the effects of Natural Reinforcers and Hormones

One of the biggest advantages of the CPP paradigm is that non-drug reinforcers can be evaluated for their motivational properties. See Table 3 for studies involving hormones and natural reinforcers.

Table 3 
Effects produced by EffectsReferences 
LHRHCPPDe Beun et al. (1991a, 1992a)
TestosteroneCPPDe Beun et al. (1992b); Alexander et al. (1994)
EstradiolCPADe Beun et al. (1991b)
CRFCPACador et al. (1992)
Rough-and-tumble playCPPCalcagnetti and Schechter (1992b)
Home cage odorsCPPHansen (1993)
Pups (for maternal rats)CPPMagnusson and Fleming (1995); Fleming et al. (1994)
Social playCPPCrowder and Hutto (1992a)
Successful aggressionCPPMartinez et al. (1995)
Male/female interactionCPPMeisel and Joppa (1994); Paredes and Alonso (1997); Meisel et al. (1996); Oldenburger et al. (1992); Hughes et al. (1990); Mehrara and Baum (1990); Miller and Baum (1987)
EjaculationCPPAgmo and Berenfeld (1990); Agmo and Gomez (1993)
WaterCPPCrowder and Hutto (1992a); Agmo et al. (1993); Perks and Clifton (1997)
Sucrose solution, saccharin solutionCPPPapp et al. (1991); Agmo et al. (1995); Perks and Clifton (1997); Agmo and Marroquin (1997); Stefurak and van der Kooy (1992, 1994)
FoodCPPLepore et al. (1995); Papp (1988a, 1989); Papp et al. (1991); Cheeta et al. (1994); Willner et al. (1994); Guyon et al. (1993); Muscat et al. (1992); Perks and Clifton (1997); Maes and Vossen (1993); Chaperon et al. (1998)
Novel environmentCPPCarr et al. (1988); Bardo et al. (1989, 1990, 1993); Parker (1992); Laviola and Adriani (1998)

Back To Top

5.5 Evaluation of aversive/emotional domain of pain

In recent years, the aversive/emotional domain of pain has been evaluated by the conditioned place preference model. Basically, the CPA produced by a painful stimulus is paired with a distinct compartment. The conditioned place preference model has been used for both inflammatory pain stimulus and neuropathic pain models (Tzschentke 2007).

It has been demonstrated that inflammation induced by unilateral injection of formalin or carrageenan into the plantar surface of the hind paw of rats reduced the CPP effects of morphine (Suzuki et al. 1999d). Furthermore, the subcutaneous injection of a 2.5% formalin solution into the hind paw of rats produces CPA. Formalin injection also produced clear nocifensive behavior (paw licking, lifting, flinching, etc.) during the conditioning phase. (Johansen, Fields & Manning 2001). A study induced neuropathic pain by partially ligating the sciatic nerve and demonstrated the reduced approach behavior response to morphine (Ozaki et al. 2002).

 

Back To Top

5.6.2 Studies involving the Opioids drugs in genetically modified animals

DAT knockout mice exhibited a stronger CPP response to morphine when compared with wild types (Spielewoy et al. 2000). However, unlike controls, the DAT knockout mice did not exhibit a morphine-induced hyperlocomotion. Additionally, morphine-induced analgesia was undisturbed in the genetically modified mice, while the behavioral manifestation of naloxone-induced withdrawal was reduced. Morphine produced higher extracellular levels of dopamine and a higher rate of c-Fos transcription in the NAS shell in DAT knockout mice compared with controls. Therefore, the enhanced rewarding effects of morphine in DAT knockout mice may be associated with the amplified morphine- induced dopaminergic activity within the NAS shell. Overexpression of the glutamate transporter GLT-1 produced by adenovirus-mediated gene transfer eliminated morphine-induced CPP in the NAS shell (Fujio et al. 2005).

 

Back To Top

5.6.3 Studies involving Ethanol in genetically modified animals

In homozygous D2 receptor knockout mice, ethanol failed to produce CPP, whereas the approach behavior was elicited in wild-type and heterozygous mice at this dose (Cunningham et al. 2000).  Conversely, deletion of the D3 receptor had no impact on ethanol-induced CPP (Boyce-Rustay & Risinger 2003).

In female MOR (mu opioid receptor) knockout mice, ethanol (2 g/kg IP) did not produce a CPP, regardless of whether the animals were heterozygous or homozygous for the receptor deletion (Hall et al. 2001). On the contrary, no effect of MOR deletion was found (in male mice) on the CPP response to 2 and 4 g/kg IP ethanol (Becker et al. 2002).

Preproenkephalin knockout mice showed normal ethanol-induced CPP as well as wild type-like ethanol consumption and preference (Koenig & Olive 2002). In a similar fashion, pre prodynorphin knockout mice showed normal ethanol-induced CPP. Interestingly, female (but not male) mutant mice showed reduced ethanol consumption and preference compared with wild types (Blednov et al. 2006).

Ethanol-induced CPP was absent in hetero- and homozygous mice lacking the NMDA receptor NR2A subunit (Boyce-Rustay & Holmes 2006). Mice lacking the β2-subunit of the GABA-A receptor depicted a diminished CPP response to ethanol, while mice lacking the β1-subunit of the GABA-A receptor did not differ from wild-type animals in their CPP response to this dose of ethanol. (Blednov et al. 2003).

 

Back To Top

5.6.4 Studies involving the cholinergic pathway in genetically modified animals

In 2002, Berrendero, Kieffer & Maldonado found that in MOR (mu opioid receptor gene) knockout mice nicotine failed to produce CPP. The anti-nociceptive effects of nicotine and the expression of mecamylamine-precipitated nicotine withdrawal were also weakened.

The CPP produced by (0.5 mg/kg sc) nicotine was also lacking in pre proenkephalin knockout mice, and mecamylamine-precipitated withdrawal was also lessened in the subjects (Berrendero et al. 2005).

In monoamine oxidase A- knockout mice, a dose of nicotine (0.2 mg/kg sc) that produced approach response in wild-type subjects produced avoidance response (Agatsuma et al. 2006).

Nicotine failed to produce CPP effects in mice lacking the tissue plasminogen activator t(PA) or the protease activated receptor-1 (PAR1) (Nagai et al. 2006a)

 

Back To Top

5.6 Studies involving the genetically modified animals

One of the striking advantages of CPP paradigm is its application in the studies concerning the genetically modified subjects. Some of the prominent studies involving the dopaminergic and cholinergic pathways, opioids, ethanol, and natural rewards are as follows.

 

Back To Top

5.6.5 Studies involving Natural Rewards in genetically modified animals

In male wild-type mice, sexual activity with females with intromissions alone, or with intromissions and ejaculation both produced CPP. However, in dopamine D5 receptor knockout mice, only sexual encounters with intromissions and ejaculation, but not with intromissions alone, produced CPP (Kudwa et al. 2005).

The approach behavior induced by food was integral in hetero and homozygous Dbh knockouts, the enzyme transforming dopamine to noradrenaline (Jasmin et al. 2006; Olson et al. 2006b).

The mice lacking AMPA receptor subunit GluR2 did not produce food-induced CPP, whereas the mice lacking the AMPA receptor subunit GluR1 produced food-induced CPP (Mead et al. 2005).

Valverde et al. (2004) reported that in CREB knockout mice, the CPP response to food was normal. Food-induced CPP was also unaffected (normal) in mice lacking the immediate early gene Zif268 (Valjent et al. 2006a).

In male mice lacking the aromatase enzyme (leading to estrogen deficiency), an anesthetized estrous or non-estrous female, or soiled bedding from estrous females, did not produce CPP (in contrast to the wild types) (Pierman et al. 2006).

In a transgenic mouse line (CN98) expressing a truncated and active form of calcineurin (resulting in an increase of the enzymatic activity of calcineurin of approximately 75% in the hippocampus), which shows deficits in the transition of information from short- to long-term memory, produced food-induced CPP. Although, amphetamine and morphine failed to do so. (Biala et al. 2005).

Back To Top

5.6.6 Evaluation of Extinction and Reinstatement

The extinction and reinstatement of different drug substances can also be assessed with the aid of the CPP paradigm (Yossef and Julio, 2002). Recently, there has been a major shift, and many researchers have opted the extinction-reinstatement approach for place conditioning. In extinction-reinstatement approach, the conditioned response (usually approach behavior or CPP) becomes extinguished with frequent exposure to the conditioned stimulus in the absence of the unconditioned stimulus. The initial response in the shape of the expression of the approach behavior or CPP can be reinstated by the unconditioned stimulus (usually a drug priming injection), by stressors or by conditioned cues.

Extinction of previously established drug-induced approach behavior or CPP can be accomplished either by repeated exposure to the preferred compartment without drug exposure or by pairing both the drug and non-drug compartments with vehicle (saline) treatment. The efficiency of CPP extinction is dependent upon several factors such as the number of pairings or injections, the number of extinction sessions, and the extent of the extinction period (Mueller et.al 2002; Brabant et.al 2005; Sakoori 2007)

 

Reinstatement of drug seeking and taking behavior in the laboratory animals is hypothesized to be related to drug relapse phenomena in humans. The reinstatement model had been used to determine the behavioral and neural mechanisms underlying relapse (Shaham et.al 2003; Epstein et.al 2006). Using the CPP procedure, numerous studies have also revealed that both drug-priming injections and stressors could reinstate previously reduced CPP performance (Mueller et.al 2000; Sanchez et.al 2001; Lu et.al 2002; Kreibich et.al 2004; Bardo 1984; Calcgnetti et.al 1993). This phenomenon can be a specific reflection of relapse to drug-seeking behavior that is usually observed in drug-addicted individuals.

Back To Top

5.6.1 Studies involving the dopaminergic pathway in genetically modified animals

Surprisingly, cocaine and methylphenidate (dopaminergic drugs) can produce an evident CPP effect in dopamine transporter (DAT) knockout mice. Furthermore, cocaine has also demonstrated CPP effect in SERT knockout mice as well (Sora et al. 1998).

Later, cocaine was tested in DAT/SERT double-knockout mice (Sora et al. 2001). They investigated that mice heterozygous for the DAT knockout and homozygous for the SERT knockout still exhibited cocaine-induced CPP, while mice homozygous for the DAT knockout and hetero- or homozygous for the SERT knockout did not exhibit cocaine-induced CPP.

These studies revealed an underlying interplay between Dopamine active transporter (DAT) and Serotonin transporter (SERT) in mediating the rewarding effects of cocaine. The role of the N-acetyltransferase (NAT) was demonstrated by Xu et al. 2000. They investigated that NAT knockout mice showed enhanced approach behavior when compared with wild-type rats.

Another interesting study demonstrated that amphetamine-induced CPP is retained in DAT knockout mice. (Budygin et al. 2004)

Later, it was confirmed that interaction with the DAT is vital for mediating the rewarding effects of cocaine Chen et al. 2006. They produced a knockout mouse line having a functional DAT, but insensitive to cocaine. In these mice, no cocaine-induced CPP was established, locomotor activity was diminished, and the cocaine-induced dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens was reduced significantly. However, amphetamine produced CPP response similar to that observed in wild-types in these lines.

Monoamine transporter mechanisms fundamental for cocaine reward were further studied by Hall et al. 2002) who observed CPP effects of fluoxetine, nisoxetine, and cocaine in single and multiple transporter knockout mice.

It can be inferred from all these studies that in a situation where DAT is lacking, NAT and SERT play a significant role in facilitating the rewarding effects produced by monoaminergic uptake blockers. Conversely, in the presence of DAT, SERT and NAT contributes towards attenuating rather than potentiating the rewarding effects in order to balance the overall effects of drugs such as cocaine.

 

Back To Top

CPP Sample Data

Sample Data/Results

A sample data can be visualized by comparing the performance of rodents in black versus white compartment. It is evident from the graph that there is a marked place preference for the black compartment during the testing phase which is obvious by the mean time spent in all four testing trials by the subject in the black compartment. See figure 2a

 

Figure 2a represents the mean time spent by a subject in the white or black compartment.

 

Another sample data can be visualized by plotting the CPP and CPA with respect to the time spent in the drug-paired compartment. It is evident from the graph that Cocaine and Bupropion induces CPP, whereas Citalopram induce CPA behaviors. See Figure 2b

Figure 2b: Relationship between CPP and CPA in terms of time spent in drug paired compartment

Yet another sample data represents the impact of lesions/injuries on the CPP behavior. For instance, diazepam induces CPP behavior, but in case of nucleus accumbens septa (NAS) lesion, diazepam-induced CPP is obstructed. The suppression of cocaine- induced CPP behavior may be the indication of VP (ventral pallidum) lesion. Figure 2c

Figure 2c: co-relation between CPP and lesion/injuries

Back To Top

CPP Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

  • The most promising advantage of the CPP paradigm is its ability to assess both the preference and aversion of the substance within a single test.
  • The drug substance may have effects beyond the rewarding/aversive domain that may influence the time spent by the subject in the previously drug-paired side. This problem is resolved by the CPP model as it determines the baseline and final place preference in an animal that is drug-free.
  • The motivational properties of the different drugs can be assessed by minimal quantities (low doses) of drugs when compared to other behavioral methods that assess motivational properties. This capacity makes CPP as one of the most sensitive behavioral test.
  • While there are superior methods of assessing factors that contribute to drug addiction, namely drug self-administration, CPP is a simple and much more accessible approach to measuring reward function. It is amenable to several manipulations and could be used to test both subject’s place preference and aversion to certain substances. There is also less stress to the subject as treatment is administered.
  • One of the greatest advantages of the CPP is that it is well suited for evaluating locomotor activity concurrently with the drug reward. Furthermore, it also helps to investigate the neuronal circuits involved in drug reward. It is still one of the very simple and dynamic models that have been developed in an attempt to understand the complexities of human addictions clearly.
  • CPP is preferred over the self-administration experiments in terms of the dose-effect curves. CPP characteristically yields a monophasic dose-effect curve, whereas self-administration experiments yield inverted U-shaped dose-effect curves. (Yokel 1987; Stafford et al. 1998).
  • The CPP task is highly preferred because it is completed within a short period of time. The likelihood exists that a CPP or CPA can be shown in as meager as one drug pairing (Bardo et.al 1986; Iwamoto 1988; Mucha et.al 1982) and when different pairings are utilized, these pairings can be directed either on more than once or twice a day without diminishing the overall strength of conditioning (Calcagnetti et.al 1992).
  • The equipment needed to regulate the CPP model has turned out to be exceptionally refined with devices that not just permit automation of the time spent on a specific side, additionally the capacity to quantify the actions of subjects while it is physically present in a specific environment with the help of video tracker such as Noldus Ethovision XT. The applications of CPP model overshadow the equipment expenses as the results are highly reproducible.
  • The subjects can be tested in the drug-free state, where there is no disruption of its behavior, additionally, the impacts of pharmacological antagonists can be determined without disruptions. By incorporating the antagonist amid conditioning (drug-environment pairings) and just later testing (when the animal is drug-free) for potential impacts of the antagonist upon the agonist used to condition the subject, allows reliable measure of the agonist-antagonist associations to be resolved. Furthermore, this task can be adjusted to evaluate the rewarding properties of different physiological states, e.g., access to a sexually responsive mate (Mehrara et.al 1990) or to another juvenile rodent as a playmate (Calcagnetti et.al 1992b). The CPP-test can also assist to determine the drug effects upon physiological states (Bardo et.al 1990).
  • CPP gives a reliable measure of the rewarding and aversive properties of drugs and the other physiological treatments. This notion is further strengthened as the CPP’s verdict about the rewarding and aversive properties is also confirmed by other behavioral models that measure drug rewarding and aversive properties as well. Drugs that have seemed to yield place preference in the CPP task have also shown rewarding properties in other behavioral models as well. In this way, drugs of abuse, and physiological treatments, for example, access to sustenance, are able to produce CPP and have rewarding properties in operant behavioral models. On the other hand, agents such as lithium chloride, and physiological treatments such as irradiation depicts CPA, and these treatments elicit avoidance behavior in other behavioral paradigms as well.

Back To Top

Limitations

  • For long there has been a lingering criticism on CPP regarding what exactly is being evaluated by the CPP task. The likelihood exists that subjects are not depicting a drug-environmental paired preference, but rather are influenced by the locomotor activating and sedative actions of the drugs. For example, the increased activity as manifested by the stimulant drug may change the interoceptive state of the subject in a specific environment in order to enhance the exploratory activity and, accordingly, uplift its acquaintance with the drug-paired environment. Conversely, after control treatment in a particular environment, the subject may associate less exploration with this environment. On the test day, the subjects will be well-suited to enter a place that they have explored comprehensively.
  • A confounding variable associated with the CPP test dwells in the likelihood that the signs of the conditioning environment stay novel to the subject because of the drug effects. The subject may spend more time in the drug combined side during testing because of the novelty of encountering that side in a drug-free state.
  • Shortfalls in performance produced by drug-state reliance might be viewed as another constraint innate in the CPP test. The animals are trained in one state in that they encounter the drug effects in a specific context and, later, they are tested in an alternate state (drug-free). The likelihood exists that the failure to express a preference for the drug combined environment is innate in the way that training and testing happen in different interoceptive states.
  • Another likely mechanism underlying the CPP response could be the anxiolytic properties of the drug as opposed to the rewarding effects of drugs. So, if a drug decreases subjects’ neophobia to a least preferred side, it will then be slanted to spend more time on that side.
  • The likelihood exists that the drug may be producing an avoidance behavior for the favored environment, while the drug meddles with the subject’s capacity to recollect its introduction to the drug-conditioned environment.

Back To Top

CPP Translation

Human Translation

The CPP paradigm has been rigorously criticized as it has not been validated as a protocol for measuring drug reward in humans. Unfortunately, not even a single paper was published until 2008. In 2009, Emma Childs and Harriet de Wit validated a place preference technique in humans based on the principle procedure followed for the laboratory animals. One of their aims was to demonstrate the translational capacity of the CPP procedure in humans like non-humans. They concluded that healthy human volunteers depicted preference for a room previously associated with the drug of abuse (amphetamine).

Since then, humans have established a CPP using food, drugs, or music, all primary reinforcers (Astur et al., 2014; Childs & de Wit, 2009; Molet et al., 2013. In 2016, Astur and co-workers established a conditioned place preference in humans utilizing the secondary reinforcers such as drug paraphernalia.

Back To Top

CPP Summary and Key Points

Summary & Key Points

  • The conditioned place preference (CPP) is a widely used behavioral model which can evaluate the motivational properties such as the rewarding and aversive effects of drugs and natural substances as well.
  • A conditioned place preference (CPP) is said to occur if the animals spend considerably more time in the drug-paired compartment than the vehicle-paired compartment.
  • Rossi and Reid developed the concept of drug-paired conditioning to measure drug induce affective state (approach or avoidance behavior) as a measure of the rewarding properties of drug substances.
  • In CPP, the primary stimulus (drug) serves as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS). When it is paired with a secondary stimulus (visual or tactile cue) which acts as a conditioned stimulus (CSS), an approaching or aversive behavior for the paired environment is elicited
  • CPP continues to be very popular because of its numerous applications.
  • Classically, the CPP apparatus is of two types, namely the two-chamber design or three-chamber design.
  • The two major experimental designs used to condition animals under the influence of drugs or natural reinforcers are called the Biased and Unbiased experimental designs.
  • CPP task, whether biased or unbiased follows the timeline of Pre-test, Conditioning, and Testing Phase.

Back To Top

CPP References

References

Suzuki, T.(1999) Usefulness of conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm and its practical application. Nihon Yakurigaku Zasshi. 114(6):365-71.

MARTIN D. SCHECHTER I AND DANIEL J. CALCAGNETTI. (1993) Trends in Place Preference Conditioning With a Cross-Indexed Bibliography; 1957-1991. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. Vol. 17, pp. 21-41

Bechara, A.; Harrington~ F.; Nader, K.; van der Kooy, D. (1992) Neurobiology of motivation: Double dissociation of two motivational mechanisms mediating opiate reward in drug- naive vs. drug dependent animals. Behav. Neurosci. 106:798-807.

Swerdiow, N. R.; van der Kooy, D.; Koob, G. F.; Wenger, J. R. (1983) Cholecystokinin produces conditioned place-aversions, not place preferences, in food-deprived rats: evidence against involvement in satiety. Life Sci. 32:2087-2093.

Miller, R. L.; Baum, M. J. (1987) Naloxone inhibits mating and conditioned place preference for an estrous female in male rats soon after castration. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 26:781-789.

Agmo, A.; Federman, I.; Navarro, V.; Padua, M.; Velazquez, G. (1993) Reward and reinforcement produced by drinking water: Role of opioids and dopamine receptor subtypes. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 46:183-194.

Richard A. Hughes, Michael R. Baker, and Karin M. Rettig. (1995) Cocaine-Conditioned Place Preference in Young Precocial Domestic Fowl. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacoiogy. Vol. 3, No. 2,105-111

Christopher L Cunningham, Christina M Gremel & Peter A Groblewski. (2006) Drug-induced conditioned place preference and aversion in mice. Nat Protoc.1(4):1662-70.

Laura N. Smith, Rachel D. Penrod, Makoto Taniguchi, Christopher W. Cowan. (2016) Assessment of Cocaine-induced Behavioral Sensitization and Conditioned Place Preference in Mice. J. Vis. Exp. (108), e53107

JOHN GARCIA, M.A., D. J. KIMELDORF, Ph.D., and E. L. HUNT, B.A. (1957) SPATIAL AVOIDANCE TO IN THE RAT AS A RESULT OF EXPOSURE IONIZING RADIATION. Br J Radiol. 30(354):318-21.

Huiwen Zhu†, Zhiyuan Liu†, Yiming Zhou, Xuming Yin, Bo Xu, Lan Ma, Xing Liu. (2017). Lack of β2-AR Increases Anxiety-Like Behaviors and Rewarding Properties of Cocaine. Front Behav Neurosci. 11: 49.

  1. T. BARDO, 1 J. K. ROWLETT 2 AND M. J. HARRIS. (1995) Conditioned Place Preference Using Opiate and Stimulant Drugs: A Meta-Analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 39-51.

Christopher L. Cunningham · Nikole K. Ferree · MacKenzie A. Howard. (2003) Apparatus bias and place conditioning with ethanol in mice. Psychopharmacology. 170:409–422

Brandon Lucke-Wold. (2011) The Varied Uses of Conditioned Place Preference in Behavioral Neuroscience Research: An Investigation of Alcohol Administration in Model Organisms. Impulse (Columbia).

Adina Blander, Tony Hunt, Richard Blair, and Zalman Amit. (1984) Conditioned place preference: An evaluation of morphine’s positive reinforcing properties. Psychopharmacology. 84:124 – 127

Carr, G. D. and White, N. M. (1986) Anatomical disassociation of amphetamine’s rewarding and aversive effects: an Intracranial microinjection study. Psychopharmacology 89, 340-346

Carr GD, Whilte NM. (1983) Conditioned place preference from intra-accumbens but not intra-caudate amphetamine injections. Life Sci 33: 2551-2557

Shippenberg TS, Elmer GI (1998) The neurobiology of opiate reinforcement. Crit Rev Neurobiol 12:267–303

MARTIN D. SCHECHTER. (1992a). Rats Bred for Differences in Preference to Cocaine: Other Behavioral Measurements. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 43, 1015-102

Tzschentke TM. (2007) Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade. Addict Biol. 12(3-4):227-462.

Suzuki T, Kishimoto Y, Misawa M, Nagase H, Takeda F (1999d) Role of the kappa-opioid system in the attenuation of the morphine induced

place preference under chronic pain. Life Sci 64: L1–L7.

Johansen JP, Fields HL, Manning BH (2001) The affective component of pain in rodents: direct evidence for a contribution of the anterior

cingulate cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:8077–8082.

Ozaki S, Narita M, Narita M, Iino M, Sugita J, Matsumura Y, Suzuki T (2002) Suppression of the morphine-induced rewarding effect

in the rat with neuropathic pain: implication of the reduction in mu-opioid receptor functions in the ventral tegmental area. J Neurochem

82:1192–1198.

Sora I, Wichems C, Takahashi N, Li XF, Zeng Z, Revay R, Lesch KP, Murphy DL, Uhl GR (1998) Cocaine reward models: conditioned place preference can be established in dopamine- and in serotonin-transporter knockout mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:7699– 7704.

Sora I, Hall FS, Andrews AM, Itokawa M, Li XF, Wei HB, Wichems C, Lesch KP, Murphy DL, Uhl GR (2001) Molecular mechanisms of cocaine reward: combined dopamine and serotonin transporter knockouts eliminate cocaine place preference. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5300–5305.

Xu F, Gainetdinov RR, Wetsel WC, Jones SR, Bohn LM, Miller GW, Wang YM, Caron MG (2000) Mice lacking the norepinephrine transporter are supersensitive to psychostimulants. Nat Neurosci 3:465–471.

Budygin EA, Brodie MS, Sotnikova TD, Mateo Y, John CE, Cyr M, Gainetdinov RR, Jones SR (2004) Dissociation of rewarding and dopamine transporter-mediated properties of amphetamine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:7781–7786.

R, Tilley MR, Wei H, Zhou F, Zhou FM, Ching S, Quan N, Stephens RL, Hill ER, Nottoli T, Han DD, Gu HH (2006) Abolished cocaine reward in mice with a cocaine-insensitive dopamine transporter. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:9333–9338.

Hall FS, Li XF, Sora I, Xu F, Caron M, Lesch KP, Murphy DL, Uhl GR (2002) Cocaine mechanisms: enhanced cocaine, fluoxetine and nisoxetine place preferences following monoamine transporter deletions. Neuroscience 115:153–161.

Spielewoy C, Gonon F, Roubert C, Fauchey V, Jaber M, Caron MG, Roques BP, Hamon M, Betancur C, Maldonado R, Giros B (2000) Increased rewarding properties of morphine in dopamine-transporter knockout mice. Eur J Neurosci 12:1827–1837.

Fujio M, Nakagawa T, Sekiya Y, Ozawa T, Suzuki Y, Minami M, Satoh M, Kaneko S (2005) Gene transfer of GLT-1, a glutamate transporter, into the nucleus accumbens shell attenuates methamphetamine- and morphine-induced conditioned place preference in rats. Eur J Neurosci 22:2744–2754.

Boyce-Rustay JM, Risinger FO (2003) Dopamine D3 receptor knockout mice and the motivational effects of ethanol. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 75:373–379.

Cunningham CL, Henderson CM (2000) Ethanol-induced conditioned place aversion in mice. Behav Pharmacol 11:591–602.

Becker A, Grecksch G, Kraus J, Loh HH, Schroeder H, Hollt V (2002) Rewarding effects of ethanol and cocaine in mu opioid receptor deficient mice. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 365:296–302.

Koenig HN, Olive MF (2002) Ethanol consumption patterns and conditioned place preference in mice lacking preproenkephalin. Neurosci Lett 325:75–78.

Blednov YA, Walker D, Martinez M, Harris RA (2006) Reduced alcohol consumption in mice lacking preprodynorphin. Alcohol 40:73–86.

Berrendero F, Kieffer BL, Maldonado R (2002) Attenuation of nicotine-induced antinociception, rewarding effects, and dependence in mu-opioid receptor knock-out mice. J Neurosci 22:10935–10940.

Berrendero F, Mendizabal V, Robledo P, Galeote L, Bilkei-Gorzo A, Zimmer A, Maldonado R (2005) Nicotine-induced antinociception, rewarding effects, and physical dependence are decreased in mice lacking the preproenkephalin gene. J Neurosci 25:1103–1112.

Agatsuma S, Lee M, Zhu H, Chen K, Shih JC, Seif I, Hiroi N (2006) Monoamine oxidase A knockout mice exhibit impaired nicotine preference but normal responses to novel stimuli. Hum Mol Genet 15:2721–2731.

Nagai T, Ito M, Nakamichi N, Mizoguchi H, Kamei H, Fukakusa A, Nabeshima T, Takuma K, Yamada K (2006a) The rewards of nicotine: regulation by tissue plasminogen activator-plasmin system through protease activated receptor-1. J Neurosci 26:12374–12383.

Kudwa AE, Dominguez-Salazar E, Cabrera DM, Sibley DR, Rissman EF (2005) Dopamine D5 receptor modulates male and female sexual behavior in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 180:206–214.

Jasmin L, Narasaiah M, Tien D (2006) Noradrenaline is necessary for the hedonic properties of addictive drugs. Vascul Pharmacol 45:243–250.

Olson VG, Heusner CL, Bland RJ, During MJ, Weinshenker D, Palmiter RD (2006b) Role of noradrenergic signaling by the nucleus tractus solitarius in mediating opiate reward. Science 311:1017–1020.

Mead AN, Brown G, Le Merrer J, Stephens DN (2005) Effects of deletion of gria1 or gria2 genes encoding glutamatergic AMPAreceptor subunits on place preference conditioning in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 179:164–171.

Valverde O, Mantamadiotis T, Torrecilla M, Ugedo L, Pineda J, Bleckmann S, Gass P, Kretz O, Mitchell JM, Schutz G, Maldonado R (2004) Modulation of anxiety-like behavior and morphine dependence in CREB-deficient mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:1122–1133.

Valjent E, Aubier B, Corbille AG, Brami-Cherrier K, Caboche J, Topilko P, Girault JA, Herve D (2006a) Plasticity-associated gene Krox24/Zif268 is required for long-lasting behavioral effects of cocaine. J Neurosci 26:4956–4960.

Pierman S, Tirelli E, Douhard Q, Baum MJ, Bakker J (2006) Male aromatase knockout mice acquire a conditioned place preference for cocaine but not for contact with an estrous female. Behav Brain Res 174:64–69.

Biala G, Betancur C, Mansuy IM, Giros B (2005) The reinforcing effects of chronic D-amphetamine and morphine are impaired in a line of memory-deficient mice overexpressing calcineurin. Eur J Neurosci 21:3089–3096.

Yossef Itzhak Ph.D and Julio L Martin BSc. Cocaine-induced Conditioned Place Preference in Mice: Induction, Extinction and Reinstatement by Related Psychostimulants. Neuropsychopharmacology 26 130-134 (2002)

Mueller, D., Perdikaris, D., and Stewart, J. (2002) Persistence and drug-induced reinstatement of a morphine-induced conditioned place preference. Behav. Brain Res. 136, 389–397.

Brabant, C., Quertemont, E., and Tirelli, E. (2005) Influence of the dose and the number of drug-context pairings on the magnitude and the long-lasting retention of cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in C57BL/6J mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 180, 33–40.

Sakoori, K. and Murphy, N.P. (2007) Endogenous nociceptin (orphanin FQ) suppresses basal hedonic state and acute reward responses to methamphetamine and ethanol, but facilitates chronic responses. Neuropsychopharmacology 33, 877–891

Mueller, D. and Stewart, J. (2000) Cocaine-induced conditioned place preference: reinstatement by priming injections of cocaine after extinction. Behav. Brain Res. 115, 39–47.

Shaham, Y., Shalev, U., Lu, L., De Wit, H., and Stewart, J. (2003) The reinstatement model of drug relapse: history, methodology and major findings. Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 168, 3–20.

Epstein, D.H., Preston, K.L., Stewart, J., and Shaham, Y. (2006) Toward a model of drug relapse: an assessment of the validity of the reinstatement procedure. Psychopharmacology 189, 1–16.

Sanchez, C.J. and Sorg, B.A. (2001) Conditioned fear stimuli reinstate cocaine-induced conditioned place preference. Brain Res. 908, 86–92.

Lu, L., Zhang, B., Liu, Z., and Zhang, Z. (2002) Reactivation of cocaine conditioned place preference induced by stress is reversed by cholecystokinin-B receptors antagonist in rats. Brain Res. 954, 132–140.

Kreibich, A.S. and Blendy, J.A. (2004) cAMP response element-binding protein is required for stress but not cocaineinduced reinstatement. J. Neurosci. 24, 6686–6692.

Bardo, M.T., Miller, J.S., and Neisewander, J.L. (1984) Conditioned place preference with morphine: the effect of extinction training on the reinforcing CR. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 21, 545–549.

Calcagnetti, D.J. and Schechter, M.D. (1993) Extinction of cocaine-induced place approach in rats: a validation of the “biased” conditioning procedure. Brain Res. Bull. 30, 695–700.

Childs E, de Wit H. (2009) Amphetamine-induced place preference in humans. Biol Psychiatry. 15;65(10):900-4

Astur, R. S., Carew, A. W., & Deaton, B. E. (2014). Conditioned place preferences in humans using virtual reality. Behav Brain Res, 267, 173-177.

Molet, M., Billiet, G., & Bardo, M. T. (2013). Conditioned place preference and aversion for music in a virtual reality environment. Behav Processes, 92, 31-35.

Robert S. Astur, Alexandra N.Palmisano, Andrew W. Carew, Bonnie E. Deaton, Franchesca S. Kuhney, Rachel N. Niezrecki, Ellie C. Hudd, Kelly L.Mendicino& Christopher J. Ritter. (2016) Conditioned place preferences in humans using secondary reinforcers. Behav Brain Res. 15;297: 15-9.

Iwamoto, E.T. (1988) Dynorphin A (1-17) induces “reward” in rats in the place conditioning paradigm. Life Sci. 43:503-508.

Calcagnetti, D. J.; Schechter, M. D. (1992) Reducing the time needed to conduct conditioned place preference testing. Prog. NeuroPsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 16:969-976.

Advocat, C. (1985). Evidence of place conditioning after chronic intrathecal morphine in rat. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav, 22:271-277.

Amahic,;M. Cline,; E. J. Martinez,; J. L., Jr.; Bloom, F. E. Koob,; G. F. (1987) Rewarding properties of B-endorphin as measured by conditioned place preference. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 91: 14-19.

Asin, K. E.; Wirtshafter, D.; Tabakoff, B. (1985). Failure to establish a conditioned place preference with ethanol in rats. Pharmacol. Biothem. Behav. 22:169-173.

Bardo, M. T.; Miller, J. S.; Neisewander, J. L. (1984). Conditioned place preference with morphine: The effect of extinction training on the reinforcing CR. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 21:545-549.

Bardo, M. T.; Neisewander, J. L. (1986). Single-trial conditioned place preference using intavenous morphine. Ph-col. Biochem. Behav. 25:1101- 1105.

Bardo, M. T.; Neisewander, J. L. (1987). Chronic naltrexone supersensitizes the reinforcing and locomotor-activating effects of morphine. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 28:267-273.

Bardo, M. T.; Neisewander, J. L.; Miller, J. S. (1986). Repeated testing attenuates conditioned place preference with cocaine. Psychopharmacology. (Berlin) 89:239-243.

Barr, G. A.; Paredes, W.; Bridger, W. H. (1985). Place conditioning with morphine and phencyclidine: dose dependent effects. Life Sci. 36:363-368.

Beach, H. D. Morphine addiction in rats. Can. J. Psychol. 11: 104-l 12; 1957.

Bechara, A.; van der Kooy, D. (1985). Opposite motivational effects of endogenous opioids in brain and periphery. Nature 314:533-534.

Bechara, A.; van der Kooy, D. (1988). The incentive motivational properties of food and opiates are mediated by a common brainstem substrate. Sot. Neurosci. Abstr. 14:1103.

Bechara, A.; Zito, K. A.; van der Kooy, D. (1987). Peripheral receptors mediate the aversive conditioning effects of morphine in the rat. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 28:219-225.

Blander, A.; Hunt, T.; Blair, R.; Amit, Z. (1984). Conditioned place preference: An evaluation of morphine’s positive reinforcing properties. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 84124-127.

Bozarth, M. A. (1987). Conditioned place preference: A parametric analysis using systemic heroin injections. In: Bozarth, M. A., ed. Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs. New York: Springer-Verlag ; 241-273.

Bozarth, M. A.; Wise, R. A. (1981). Heroin reward is dependent on a dopaminergic substrate. Life Sci. 29: 1881-1886.

Carboni, E.; Acquas, E.; Leone, P.; DiChiara, G. (1989). 5HTs receptor antagonists block morphine- and nicotine- but not amphetamineinduced reward. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 97:175-178.

Carr, G. D.; Phillips, A. G. (1987). Differential effects of dopamine antagonists on amphetamine-induced locomotor stimulation and reward. Sot. Neurosci. Abstr. 13:833.

Carr, G. D.: Phillips, A. G.; Fibiger, H. C. (1988). Independence of amphetamine reward from locomotor stimulation demonstrated by conditioned place preference. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 94: 221-6.

Clarke, P. B. S.; Fibiger, H. C. (1987). Apparent absence of nicotine induced conditioned place preference in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 92:84-88.

Costello, N. L.; Carlson, J. N.; Glick, S. D. (1987). Dose-dependent and baseline-dependent conditioning in the place preference paradigm. Sot. Neurosci. Abstr. 13:998.

Di Scala, G.; Martin-Iverson, M. T.; Phillips, A. G.; Fibiger, H. C. (1985). The effects of progabide (SL 76002) on locomotor activity and conditioned place preference induced by d-amphetamine. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 107:271-274.

Dymshitz, J.; Lieblich, I. (1987). Opiate reinforcement and naloxone aversion as revealed by place preference paradigm, in two strains of rats. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 92:473477.

Gilbert, D.; Cooper, S. J. (1983). Beta-phenylamine-, d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine-induced place preference conditioning in rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 95:311-314.

Hiroi, N.; White, N. M. (1988). Effects of alpha-methyl-para-tyrosine on the maintenance of conditioned place preference. Sot. Neurosci. Abstr. 14:850.

Hoffman, D. C.; Beninger, R. J. (1988). Selective Dl and D2 dopamine agonists produce opposing effects in place conditioning but not conditioned taste aversion learning. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 31:1-8.

Hoffman, D. C.; Beninger, R. J. (1989). The effects of selective dopamine Dl or D2 receptor antagonists on the establishment of agonist induced place conditioning. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 33:273- 279.

Issac, W.; Neisewander, J.: Landers, T.; Alcala. R.; Bardo, M.; Nonneman, A. (1984). Mesocortical dopamine system lesions disrupt cocaine reinforced conditioned place preference. Sot. Neurosci. Abstr. IO: 1206.

Iwamoto, E. T. (1986).  Place-conditioning properties of mu, kappa. and sigma opioid agonists. Alcohol Drug Res. 6:327-339.

Katz, R. J.; Gormezano, G. (1979). A rapid and inexpensive technique for assessing the reinforcing effects of opiate drugs. Pharmacol. Biothem. Behav. 11:213-233.

Kelsey, J. E.; Carlezon, W. A., Jr.; Falls, W. A. (1987). Lesions of the nucleus accumbens in rats reduce opiate reward, but not tolerance. Sot. Neurosci. Abstr. 13:424.

Kruszewska, A.; Romandini, S.; Samanin, R. (1986). Different effects of zimelidine on the reinforcing properties of d-amphetamine and morphine on conditioned place preference in rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 125:283-286.

Kumar, R. (1972).  Morphine dependence in rats: secondary reinforcement from environmental stimuli. Psychophannacologia 25:332-338.

LeMoal, M.; Stinus, L.; Hand, T. H. (1988). Different mechanisms underlie the acquisition and expression of heroin-induced place preference. Sot. Neurosci. Abstr. 14:661.

Leone, P.; Di Chiara, G. (1987). Blockade of D-l receptors by SCH 23390 antagonizes morphine- and amphetamine-induced place preference conditioning. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 135:251-254.

Lett, B T. (1988). Enhancement of conditioned preference for a place paired with amphetamine produced by blocking the association between place and amphetamine-induced sickness. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 95:390-394.

Mackey, W. B.; van der Kooy. D. (1985). Neuroleptics block the positive reinforcing effects of amphetamine but not of morphine as measured by place conditioning. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 22:101-105.

Martin, G. M.; Bechara, A.; van der Kooy, D. (1988). Morphine preexposure attenuates the aversive properties of opiates without preexposure to the aversive properties. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 30:6X7- 692.

Michaelis, R. C.; Holloway, F. A.; Harland, R. D.; Criado, J. R. (1987). Conditioned place preference for cocaine in rats: open test with known expected baseline choice values. Sot. Neurosci. Abstr. 13:1719.

Mithani, S.; Martin-Iverson, M. T.; Phillips, A. G.; Fibiger, H. C. (1986). The effects of haloperidol on amphetamine and methylphenidate induced conditioned place preferences and locomotor activity. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 90:247-252.

Morency, M. A.: Beninger, R. J. (1987). Dopaminergic substrates of cocaine-induced place conditioning. Brain Res. 399:3341.

Mucha, R. F.; Herz, A. (1985). Motivational properties of kappa and mu opioid receptor agonists studied with place and taste preference conditioning. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 86:274-280.

Mucha, R. F.: Millan. M. J.; Herz, A. (1985). Aversive properties of naloxone in non-dependent (naive) rats may involve blockade of central beta-endorphin. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 86:281-285.

Mucha, R. F.; van der Kooy. D.; O’Shaughnessy, M.; Bucenieks, P. (1982). Drug reinforcement studies by the use of place conditioning in rat. Brain Res. 243:91-105.

Mucha, R. F.; Walker, M. J. K. (1987). Aversive property of opioid receptor blockade in drug-naive mice. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 93: 483-488.

Nomikos, G. G.; Spyraki, C. (1988). Cocaine-induced place conditioning: importance of route of administration and other procedural variables. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 94:119-125.

Nomikos, G. G.; Spyraki, C. (1988). Effects of ritanserin on the rewarding properties of d-amphetamine, morphine and diazepam revealed by conditioned place preference in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 30:853-858.

Pettit, H. 0.; Mueller, K. (1987). VTA microinjections of (S)-cholecystokinin octapeptide potentiate amphetamine conditioned place preferences. Sot. Neurosci. Abstr. 13:612.

Reicher, M. A.; Holman, E. W. (1977). Location preference and flavour aversion reinforced by amphetamine in rats. Anim. Learn. Behav. 51343-346.

Rossi, N. A.; Reid, L. D. (1976). Affective states associated with morphine injections. Physiol. Psychol. 4:269-274.

Schenk, S.; Ellison, F.; Hunt, T.; Amit, Z. (1985). An examination of heroin conditioning in preferred and nonpreferred environments and in differentially housed mature and immature rats. Pharmacol. Biothem. Behav. 22:215-220.

Schenk, S.; Hunt, T.; Colle, L.; Amit, Z. (1983). Isolation versus grouped housing: differential effects of low doses of heroin in the place preference paradigm. Life Sci. 32:1129-1134.

Schenk, S.; Hunt, T.; Malovechko, R.; Robertson, A.; Klukowski, G.; Amit, Z. Differential effects of isolation housing on the conditioned place preference produced by cocaine and amphetamine. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 24:1793-1796.

Schwartz, A. S.; Marchok, P. L. (1974). Depression of morphine-seeking behavior by dopamine inhibition. Nature 248:257-258.

Sherman, J. E.; Pickman, C.; Rice, A.; Liebeskind, J. C.; Holman, E. W. (1980). Rewarding and aversive effects of morphine: Temporal and pharmacological properties. Pharmacol. B&hem. Behav. 13:501- 505.

Sherman, J. E.; Roberts, T.; Roskam, S. E.; Holman, E. W. (1980). Temporal properties of the rewarding and aversive effects of amphetamine in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 13:597-599.

Shippenberg, T. S.; Bals-Kubik, R.; Herz, A. (1987). Motivational properties of opioids: evidence that an activation of delta-receptors mediates reinforcement processes. Brain Res. 436:234-239.

Shippenberg, T. S.; Herz, A. (1987). Place preference conditioning reveals the involvement of Dl-dopamine receptors in the motivational properties of mu- and kappa-opioid agonists. Brain Res. 436: 169-172.

Shippenberg, T. S.; Herz, A. (1988) Motivational effects of opioids: influence of D-l versus D-2 receptor antagonists. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 151:233-242.

Spyraki, C.; Fibiger, H. C.; Phillips, A. G. (1982). Dopaminergic substrate of amphetamine-induced place preference conditioning. Brain Res. 253:185-193.

Spyraki, C.; Fibiger, H. C.; Phillips, A. G. (1982). Cocaine-induced place preference conditioning: lack of effects of neuroleptics and 6- hydroxydopamine lesions. Brain Res. 253:195-203.

Spyraki, C.; Fibiger, H. C.; Phillips, A. G. (1983). Attenuation of heroin reward in rats by disruption of the mesolimbic dopamine system. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 79:278-283; 1983.

Spyraki, C.; Kazandjian, A.; Varonos, D. (1985). Diazepam-induced place preference conditioning: appetitive and antiaversive properties. Psychonharmacologv (Berlin) 87:225-232.

Spyraki, C.; Nbmikos, G. G.; Galanopoulou, P.; Daifotis, Z. (1988). Drug-induced place preference in rats with 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine lesions of the nucleus accumbens. Behav. Brain Res. 29:127-134.

Spyraki, C.; Nomikos, G. G.; Varonos, D. D. (1987). Intravenous cocaine-induced place preference: attenuation by haloperidol. Behav. Brain Res. 26157-62.

Stapleton, J. M.; Lind, M. D.; Merriman, V. J.; Bozarth, M. A.; Reid, L. D. (1979). Affective consequences and subsequent effects on morphine self-administration of d-ala’-methionine enkephalin. Physiol. Psychol. 7:146-152.

Swerdlow, N. R.; Koob, G. F. (1984). Restrained rats learn amphetamine-conditioned locomotion, but not place preference. Psychophannacology (Berlin) 84: 163-166.

Vezina, P.; Stewart, J. (1987). Conditioned locomotion and place preference elicited by tactile cues paired exclusively with morphine in an open field. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 91:375-380.

Vezina, P.; Stewart, J. (1987). Morphine conditioned place preference and locomotion: the effect of confinement during training. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 93:257-260.

Zito, K. A.; Bechara, A.; Greenwood, C.; van der Kooy, D. (1988). The dopamine innervation of the visceral cortex mediates the aversive effects of opiates. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 30:693-699.

Shippenberg, T. S. and Bals-Kubik, R. (1995) Involvement of the mesolimbic dopamine system in mediating the aversive effects of opioid antagonists in the rat. Behav. Pharmacol. 6, 99-106.

Shippenberg, T. S., Bals-Kubik, R. and Herz, A. (1993) Examination of the neurochemical substrates mediating the motivational effects of opioids: role of the mesolimbic dopamine system and D1 vs. D2 dopamine receptors. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 265, 53-59.

Spyraki, C. and Fibiger, H. C. (1988) A role of the mesolimbic dopamine system in the reinforcing properties of diazepam. Psychopharmacology 94, 133-137.

Pierce, R. C., Crawford, C. A., Nonneman, A. J., Mattingly, B. A. and Bardo, M. T. (1990) Effect of forebrain dopamine depletion on novelty-induced place preference behavior in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 36, 321-325.

Gong, W. H., Neill, D. B. and Justice, J. B., Jr. (1997b) 6- Hydroxydopamine lesion of ventral pallidum blocks acquisition of place preference conditioning to cocaine. Brain Res. 754, 103-112.

Clark, P. B., White, N. M. and Franklin, K. B. (1990) 6- Hydroxydopamine lesions of the olfactory tubercle do not alter (+)-amphetamine-conditioned place preference. Behav. Brain Res. 36, 185-188.

Hemby, S. E., Jones, G. H., Neill, D. B. and Justice, J. B., Jr. (1992b) 6-Hydroxydopamine lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex fail to influence cocaine-induced place conditioning. Behav. Brain Res. 49, 225-230.

Zito, K. A., Bechara, A., Greenwood, C. and van der Kooy, D. (1988) The dopamine innervation of the visceral cortex mediates the aversive effects of opiates. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 30, 693–699.

Martin-Iverson, M. T., Ortmann, R. and Fibiger, H. C. (1985) Place preference conditioning with methylphenidate and nomifensine. Brain Res. 332, 59-67.

Olmstead, M. C. and Franklin, K. B. (1996) Differential effects of ventral striatal lesions on the conditioned place preference induced by morphine or amphetamine. Neuroscience 71, 701-708.

Olmstead, M. C. and Franklin, K. B. J. (1997a) The development of a conditioned place preference to morphine: effects of lesions of various CNS sites. Behav. Neurosci. 111, 1313-1323.

Everitt, B. J., Morris, K. A., O’Brien, A. and Robbins, T. W. (1991) The basolateral amygdala-ventral striatal system and conditioned place preference: further evidence of limbic-striatal interactions underlying reward-related processes. Neuroscience 42, 1-18.

Kelsey, J. E. and Arnold, S. R. (1994) Lesions of the dorsomedial amygdala, but not the nucleus accumbens, reduce the aversiveness of morphine withdrawal in rats. Behav. Neurosci. 108, 1119-1127.

White, N. M. and McDonald, R. J. (1993) Acquisition of a spatial conditioned place preference is impaired by amygdala lesions and improved by fornix lesions. Behav. Brain Res. 55, 269-281.

McAlonan, G. M., Robbins, T. W. and Everitt, B. J. (1993) Effects of medial dorsal thalamic and ventral pallidal lesions on the acquisition of a conditioned place preference: further evidence for the involvement of the ventral striatopallidal system in reward-related processes. Neuroscience 52, 605-620.

Hiroi, N. and White, N. M. (1993) The ventral pallidum area is involved in the acquisition but not expression of the amphetamine conditioned place preference. Neurosci. Lett. 156, 9–12.

Brown, E. E. and Fibiger, H. C. (1993) Differential effects of excitotoxic lesions of the amygdala on cocaine-induced conditioned locomotion and conditioned place preference. Psychopharmacology 113, 123-130.

Hiroi, N. and White, N. M. (1991b) The lateral nucleus of the amygdala mediates expression of the amphetamine-produced conditioned place preference. J. Neurosci. 11, 2107-2116.

Tzschentke, T. M. and Schmidt, W. J. (1998b) Discrete quinolinic acid lesions of the rat prelimbic medial prefrontal cortex affect cocaine- and MK-801-, but not morphine- and amphetamine induced reward and psychomotor activation as measured with the place preference conditioning paradigm. Behav. Brain Res., in press.

Tzschentke, T. M. and Schmidt, W. J. (1998c) Effects of discrete quinolinic acid lesions of the rat infralimbic medial prefrontal cortex on drug-induced conditioned place preference. Behav. Pharmacol., 9, Suppl. 1, S87.

Mackey, W. B., Keller, J. and van der Kooy, D. (1986) Visceral cortex lesions block conditioned taste aversions induced by morphine. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 24, 71-78.

Olmstead, M. C. and Franklin, K. B. (1993) Effects of pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus lesions on morphine-induced conditioned place preference and analgesia in the formalin test. Neuroscience 57, 411-418.

Olmstead, M. C. and Franklin, K. B. (1994) Lesions of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus block drug-induced reinforcement but not amphetamine-induced locomotion. Brain Res. 638, 29-35.

Parker, J. L. and van der Kooy, D. (1995) Tegmental pedunculopontine nucleus lesions do not block cocaine reward. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 52, 77-83.

Bechara, A. and van der Kooy, D. (1989) The tegmental pedunculopontine nucleus: a brain-stem output of the limbic system critical for the conditioned place preferences produced by morphine and amphetamine. J. Neurosci. 9, 3400-3409.

Nader, K., Bechara, A., Roberts, D. C. and van der Kooy, D. (1994) Neuroleptics block high- but not low-dose heroin place preferences: further evidence for a two-system model of motivation. Behav. Neurosci. 108, 1128-1138.

Bechara, A. and van der Kooy, D. (1992a) A single brain stem substrate mediates the motivational effects of both opiates and food in nondeprived rats but not in deprived rats. Behav. Neurosci. 106, 351-363.

Bechara, A. and van der Kooy, D. (1992b) Chronic exposure to morphine does not alter the neural tissues subserving its acute rewarding properties: Apparent tolerance is overshadowing. Behav. Neurosci. 106, 364-373.

Nader, K. and van der Kooy, D. (1994) The motivation produced by morphine and food is isomorphic: approaches to specific motivational stimuli are learned. Psychobiology 22, 68-76.

Nader, K. and van der Kooy, D. (1997) Deprivation state switches the neurobiological substrates mediating opiate reward in the ventral tegmental area. J. Neurosci. 17, 383-390.

Stefurak, T. L. and van der Kooy, D. (1994) Tegmental pedunculopontine lesions in rats decrease saccharin’s rewarding effects but not its memory-improving effect. Behav. Neurosci. 108, 972-980.

Bechara, A., Martin, G. M., Pridgar, A. and van der Kooy, D. (1993) The parabrachial nucleus: a brain stem substrate critical for mediating the aversive motivational effects of morphine. Behav. Neurosci. 107, 147-160.

Nader, K., Bechara, A. and van der Kooy, D. (1996) Lesions of the lateral parabrachial nucleus block the aversive motivational effects of both morphine and morphine withdrawal but spare morphine’s discriminative properties. Behav. Neurosci. 110, 1496-1502.

Kelsey, J. E., Carlezon, W. A., Jr and Falls, W. A. (1989) Lesions of the nucleus accumbens in rats reduce opiate reward but do not alter context-specific opiate tolerance. Behav. Neurosci. 103, 1327-1334.

Hiroi, N. and White, N. M. (1991a) The amphetamine conditioned place preference: differential involvement of dopamine receptor subtypes and two dopaminergic terminal areas. Brain Res. 552, 141-152.

Gong, W. H., Neill, D. B. and Justice, J. B., Jr. (1995) Increased sensitivity to cocaine place-preference conditioning by septal lesions in rats. Brain Res. 683, 221-227.

Mucha, R. F., Millan, M. J. and Herz, A. (1985) Aversive properties of naloxone in non-dependent (naive) rats may involve blockade of central beta-endorphin. Psychopharmacology 86, 281-285.

Shippenberg, T. S., Millan, M. J., Mucha, R. F. and Herz, A. (1988b) Involvement of beta-endorphin and mu-opioid receptors in mediating the aversive effect of lithium in the rat. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 154, 135-144.

Robertson, A. and Laferriere, A. (1989) Disruption of the connections between the mediodorsal and sulcal prefrontal cortices alters the associability of rewarding medial cortical stimulation to place and taste stimuli in rats. Behav. Neurosci. 103, 770-778.

Schalomon, P. M., Robertson, A. M. and Laferriere, A. (1994) Prefrontal cortex and the relative associability of taste and place cues in rats. Behav. Brain Res. 65, 57-65.

Isaac, W. L., Nonneman, A. J., Neisewander, J. L., Landers, T. and Bardo, M. T. (1989) Prefrontal cortex lesions differentially disrupt cocaine-reinforced conditioned place preference but not conditioned taste aversion. Behav. Neurosci. 103, 345-355.

Spyraki, C. and Fibiger, H. C. (1988) A role of the mesolimbic dopamine system in the reinforcing properties of diazepam. Psychopharmacology 94, 133-137.

Rocha, B., Di Scala, G., Rigo, M., Hoyer, D. and Sandner, G. (1993b) Effect of 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine lesion on mianserin induced conditioned place aversion and on 5- hydroxytryptamine1C receptors in the rat brain. Neuroscience 56, 687-693.

Bienkowski, P., Iwinska, K., Piasecki, J. and Kostowski, W. (1997b) 5,7-Dihydroxytryptamine lesion does not affect ethanol induced conditioned taste and place aversion in rats. Alcohol 14, 439-443.

Spyraki, C., Nomikos, G. G., Galanopoulou, P. and Daifotis, Z. (1988) Drug-induced place preference in rats with 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine lesions of the nucleus accumbens. Behav. Brain Res. 29, 127-134.

Suzuki, T., Sugano, Y., Funada, M. and Misawa, M. (1995a) Adrenalectomy potentiates the morphine- but not cocaine induced place preference in rats. Life Sci. 56, PL339-344.

Calcagnetti, D. J., Quatrella, L. A. and Schechter, M. D. (1996) Olfactory bulbectomy disrupts the expression of cocaine induced conditioned place preference. Physiol. Behav. 59, 597-604.

Bechara, A. and van der Kooy, D. (1987) Kappa receptors mediate the peripheral aversive effects of opiates. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 28, 227-233.

De Beun, R., Geerts, N. E., Jansen, E., Slangen, J. L. and van de Poll, N. E. (1991a) Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone induced conditioned place-preference in male rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 39, 143-147.

De Beun, R., Jansen, E., Smeets, M. A., Niesing, J., Slangen, J. L. and van de Poll, N. E. (1991b) Estradiol-induced conditioned taste aversion and place aversion in rats: sex- and dose-dependent effects. Physiol. Behav. 50, 995±1000.

De Beun, R., Jansen, E., Geerts, N. E., Slangen, J. L. and van de Poll, N. E. (1992a) Temporal characteristics of appetitive stimulus effects of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone in male rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 42, 445-450.

De Beun, R., Jansen, E., Slangen, J. L. and van de Poll, N. E. (1992b) Testosterone as appetitive and discriminative stimulus in rats: sex- and dose-dependent effects. Physiol. Behav. 52, 629-634

Alexander, G. M., Packard, M. G. and Hines, M. (1994) Testosterone has rewarding affective properties in male rats: implications for the biological basis of sexual motivation. Behav. Neurosci. 108, 424-428

Cador, M., Ahmed, S. H., Koob, G. F., Le Moal, M. and Stinus, L. (1992) Corticotropin-releasing factor induces a place aversion independent of its neuroendocrine role. Brain Res. 597, 304-309

Calcagnetti, D. J. and Schechter, M. D. (1992b) Place conditioning reveals the rewarding aspect of social interaction in juvenile rats. Physiol. Behav. 51, 667-672.

Hansen, S. (1993) Effect of clonidine on the responsiveness of infant rats to maternal stimuli. Psychopharmacology 111, 78-84.

Magnusson, J. E. and Fleming, A. S. (1995) Rat pups are reinforcing to the maternal rat: role of sensory cues. Psychobiology 23, 69-75.

Fleming, A. S., Korsmit, M. and Deller, M. (1994) Rat pups are potent reinforcers to the maternal animal: Effects of experience, parity, hormones, and dopamine function. Psychobiology 22, 44-53.

Crowder, W. F. and Hutto, C. W., Jr. (1992a) Operant place conditioning measures examined using two nondrug reinforcers. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 41, 817-824.

Martinez, M., Guillen-Salazar, F., Salvador, F. and Simon, V. M. (1995) Successful intermale aggression and conditioned place preference in mice. Physiol. Behav. 58, 323-328.

Meisel, R. L. and Joppa, M. A. (1994) Conditioned place preference in female hamsters following aggressive or sexual encounters. Physiol. Behav. 56, 1115-1118.

Paredes, R. G. and Alonso, A. (1997) Sexual behavior regulated (paced) by the female induces conditioned place preference. Behav. Neurosci. 111, 123-128.

Meisel, R. L., Joppa, M. A. and Rowe, R. K. (1996) Dopamine receptor antagonists attenuate conditioned place preference following sexual behavior in female Syrian hamsters. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 309, 21-24.

Oldenburger, W. P., Everitt, B. J. and de Jonge, F. H. (1992) Conditioned place preference induced by sexual interaction in female rats. Horm. Behav. 26, 214-228.

Hughes, A. M., Everitt, B. J. and Herbert, J. (1990) Comparative effects of preoptic area infusions of opioid peptides, lesions and castration on sexual behaviour in male rats: studies of instrumental behaviour, conditioned place preference and partner preference. Psychopharmacology 102, 24-256.

Mehrara, B. J. and Baum, M. J. (1990) Naloxone disrupts the expression but not the acquisition by male rats of a conditioned place preference response for an oestrous female. Psychopharmacology 101, 118-125.

Miller, R. L. and Baum, M. J. (1987) Naloxone inhibits mating and conditioned place preference for an estrous female in male rats soon after castration. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 26, 781-789.

Agmo, A. and Berenfeld, R. (1990) Reinforcing properties of ejaculation in the male rat: role of opioids and dopamine. Behav. Neurosci. 104, 177-182.

Agmo, A. and Gomez, M. (1993) Sexual reinforcement is blocked by infusion of naloxone into the medial preoptic area. Behav. Neurosci. 107, 812-818.

Crowder, W. F. and Hutto, C. W., Jr. (1992a) Operant place conditioning measures examined using two nondrug reinforcers. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 41, 817-824.

Agmo, A., Federman, I., Navarro, V., Padua, M. and Velazquez, G. (1993) Reward and reinforcement produced by drinking water: role of opioids and dopamine receptor subtypes. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 46, 183-194.

Perks, S. M. and Clifton, P. G. (1997) Reinforcer revaluation and conditioned place preference. Physiol. Behav. 61, 1–5.

Papp, M., Willner, P. and Muscat, R. (1991) An animal model of anhedonia: attenuation of sucrose consumption and place preference conditioning by chronic unpredictable mild stress. Psychopharmacology 104, 255-259.

Agmo, A., Galvan, A. and Talamantes, B. (1995) Reward and reinforcement produced by drinking sucrose: two processes that may depend on different neurotransmitters. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 52, 403-414.

Agmo, A. and Marroquin, E. (1997) Role of gustatory and postingestive actions of sweeteners in the generation of positive affect as evaluated by place preference conditioning. Appetite 29, 269-289

Stefurak, T. L. and van der Kooy, D. (1992) Saccharin’s rewarding, conditioned reinforcing, and memory-improving properties: mediation by isomorphic or independent processes. Behav. Neurosci. 106, 125-139.

Stefurak, T. L. and van der Kooy, D. (1994) Tegmental pedunculopontine lesions in rats decrease saccharin’s rewarding effects but not its memory-improving effect. Behav. Neurosci. 108, 972-980.

Lepore, M., Vorel, S. R., Lowinson, J. and Gardner, E. L. (1995) Conditioned place preference induced by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol: comparison with cocaine, morphine, and food reward. Life Sci. 56, 2073-2080.

Papp, M. (1988a) Different effects of short- and long-term treatment with imipramine on the apomorphine- and food-induced place preference conditioning in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 30, 889-893.

Papp, M. (1989) Differential effects of short- and long-term antidepressant treatments on the food-induced place preference conditioning in rats. Behav. Pharmacol. 1, 69-74.

Papp, M. and Willner, P. (1991) 8-OH-DPAT-induced place preference and place aversion: effects of PCPA and dopamine antagonists. Psychopharmacology 103, 99-102.

Cheeta, S., Broekkamp, C. and Willner, P. (1994) Stereospecific reversal of stress-induced anhedonia by mianserin and its (+)- enantiomer. Psychopharmacology 116, 523-528.

Willner, P., Lappas, S., Cheeta, S. and Muscat, R. (1994) Reversal of stress-induced anhedonia by the dopamine receptor agonist, pramipexole. Psychopharmacology 115, 454-462.

Guyon, A., Assouly-Besse, F., Biala, G., Puech, A. J. and Thiebot, M. H. (1993) Potentiation by low doses of selected neuroleptics of food-induced conditioned place preference in rats. Psychopharmacology 110, 460-466.

Muscat, R., Papp, M. and Willner, P. (1992) Reversal of stress induced anhedonia by the atypical antidepressants, fluoxetine and maprotiline. Psychopharmacology 109, 433-438.

Maes, J. R. and Vossen, J. M. (1993) Context conditioning: positive reinforcing effects of various food-related stimuli. Physiol. Behav. 53, 1227-1229.

Chaperon, F., Soubrie, P., Puech, A. J. and Thiebot, M. H. (1998) Involvement of central cannabinoid (CB1) receptors in the establishment of place conditioning in rats. Psychopharmacology 135, 324-332.

Carr, G. D., Phillips, A. G. and Fibiger, H. C. (1988) Independence of amphetamine reward from locomotor stimulation demonstrated by conditioned place preference. Psychopharmacology 94, 221-226.

Bardo, M. T., Neisewander, J. L. and Pierce, R. C. (1989) Novelty-induced place preference behavior in rats: effects of opiate and dopaminergic drugs. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 32, 683-689.

Bardo, M. T., Lacy, M. and Mattingly, B. A. (1990) Effects of apomorphine on novelty-induced place preference behavior in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 37, 89-93.

Bardo, M. T., Bowling, S. L., Robinet, P. M. and Rowlett, J. K. (1993) Role of dopamine D1 and D2 receptors in novelty-maintained place preference. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 1, 101-109.

Parker, L. A. (1992) Place conditioning in a three- or four-choice apparatus: role of stimulus novelty in drug-induced place conditioning. Behav. Neurosci. 106, 294-306.

Laviola, G. and Adriani, W. (1998) Evaluation of unconditioned novelty-seeking and d-amphetamine-conditioned motivation in mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 59, 1011-1020.

Yossef Itzhak Ph.D and Julio L Martin BSc. (2002)  Cocaine-induced Conditioned Place Preference in Mice: Induction, Extinction and Reinstatement by Related Psychostimulants. Neuropsychopharmacology 26 130-134.

  1. Levi Bolin, Heather L. Cornett, Amanda F. Barnes, Karin E. Gill, Chana K. Akins. (2012). Nicotine Induces a Conditioned Place Preference in Male Japanese Quail (Coturnix japonica). Physiol Behav.10; 107(3): 364–367.

Chana K. Akins, Neil Levens, Robert Prather, Brad Cooper, Tim Fritz. (2004). Dose-dependent cocaine place conditioning and D1 dopamine antagonist effects in male Japanese quail. Physiol Behav. 15;82(2-3):309-15.

Darland, T. & Dowling, J.E. (2001). Behavioral screening for cocaine sensitivity in mutagenized zebrafish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 11691–11696.

Vezina, P. and Stewart, J. (1987a) Conditioned locomotion and place preference elicited by tactile cues paired exclusively with morphine in an open field. Psychopharmacology 91, 375-380.

Vezina, P. and Stewart, J. (1987b) Morphine conditioned place preference and locomotion: the effect of confinement during training. Psychopharmacology 93, 257-260.

 

 

 

Back To Top