The effects of diazepam and triazolam on repeated acquisition and performance of response sequences with an observing response

Abstract

Drugs often disrupt the acquisition of new response sequences at doses that fail to disrupt the performance of a previously acquired response sequence. This selective drug effect may result from differences in the control exerted by the stimuli presented after each response in the acquisition and performance sequences. To examine the function of these stimuli, an observing procedure was incorporated into a multiple schedule of repeated acquisition and performance of response sequences, in which stimulus presentations were contingent upon an observing response. Three experiments were conducted with humans. Experiment 1 compared responding with and without the observing contingency. No difference was found in the overall percentage of errors across the two conditions. Within the observing condition, observing behaviour was maintained in the acquisition component as long as errors occurred, but was not maintained in the performance component. Experiment 2 examined whether a contingency that increased errors also would increase observing in both the acquisition and performance components. Specifically, reinforcer delivery in each component was contingent upon emitting 10 correct responses and one, two, or four errors. Observing responses increased in the acquisition component as the error requirement increased, whereas observing responses in the performance component increased only when the error requirement was four. Experiment 3 assessed the effects of diazepam (0, 7.5, 15, and 30 mg/70 kg, p.o.) and triazolam (0, 0.375, and 0.75 mg/70 kg, p.o.) on repeated acquisition and performance baselines with the observing contingency. Selective drug effects were obtained in this modified procedure; that is, the percentage of errors in the acquisition component increased at doses that failed to affect the percentage of errors in the performance components. Importantly, drug effects were selective, even though observing responses were not emitted in the performance component and, hence, the stimulus presentations did not occur in that component. These findings suggest that alternative explanations for these differential effects are needed; in that regard, a response-unit account of the selective drug effects is discussed.