Considering the Definition of Addiction

The definition of addiction is explored. Elements of addiction derived from a literature search that uncovered 52 studies include: (a) engagement in the behavior to achieve appetitive effects, (b) preoccupation with the behavior, (c) temporary satiation, (d) loss of control, and (e) suffering negative consequences. Differences from compulsions are suggested. While there is some debate on what is intended by the elements of addictive behavior, we conclude that these five constituents provide a reasonable understanding of what is intended by the concept. Conceptual challenges for future research are mentioned

A Framework for the Specificity of Addictions

Research over the last two decades suggests that a wide range of substance and behavioral addictions may serve similar functions. Yet, co-occurrence of addictions has only been reported among a minority of addicts. “Addiction specificity” pertains to a phenomenon in which one pattern of addictive behaviors may be acquired whereas another is not. This paper presents the PACE model as a framework which might help explain addiction specificity. Pragmatics, attraction, communication, and expectation (PACE) variables are described, which may help give some direction to future research needs in this arena

Cocaine Is Low on the Value Ladder of Rats: Possible Evidence for Resilience to Addiction

International audienceBACKGROUND:Assessing the relative value of cocaine and how it changes with chronic drug use represents a long-standing goal in addiction research. Surprisingly, recent experiments in rats--by far the most frequently used animal model in this field--suggest that the value of cocaine is lower than previously thought.METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Here we report a series of choice experiments that better define the relative position of cocaine on the value ladder of rats (i.e., preference rank-ordering of different rewards). Rats were allowed to choose either taking cocaine or drinking water sweetened with saccharin--a nondrug alternative that is not biologically essential. By systematically varying the cost and concentration of sweet water, we found that cocaine is low on the value ladder of the large majority of rats, near the lowest concentrations of sweet water. In addition, a retrospective analysis of all experiments over the past 5 years revealed that no matter how heavy was past cocaine use most rats readily give up cocaine use in favor of the nondrug alternative. Only a minority, fewer than 15% at the heaviest level of past cocaine use, continued to take cocaine, even when hungry and offered a natural sugar that could relieve their need of calories.CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:This pattern of results (cocaine abstinence in most rats; cocaine preference in few rats) maps well onto the epidemiology of human cocaine addiction and suggests that only a minority of rats would be vulnerable to cocaine addiction while the large majority would be resilient despite extensive drug use. Resilience to drug addiction has long been suspected in humans but could not be firmly established, mostly because it is difficult to control retrospectively for differences in drug self-exposure and/or availability in human drug users. This conclusion has important implications for preclinical research on the neurobiology of cocaine addiction and for future medication development

Similarity of the discriminative stimulus effects of ketamine, cyclazocine, and dextrorphan in the pigeon

Separate groups of pigeons were trained to discriminate the IM injection of ketamine, cyclazocine, or dextrorphan from saline. Each of the training drugs and phencyclidine produced dose-related, drug-appropriate responding in each group of birds. In contrast, ethylketazocine and nalorphine generally produced responding appropriate for saline. These results indicate that common elements of discriminable effects exist among ketamine, cyclazocine, and dextrorphan, structurally dissimilar compounds that are generally considered to belong to distinct pharmacological classes.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/46423/1/213_2004_Article_BF00422419.pd