A note on further experiments on the effects of meprobamate on discrimination performance in the monkey

A previous experiment (Gross and Weiskrantz, 1961) has shown that performance on a successive auditory discrimination task is impaired by injections of meprobamate. The present two brief experiments indicate that the drug also impairs simultaneous visual discrimination performance, although not to the same degree as found earlier for auditory discrimination. The original finding, therefore, cannot be attributed simply to unique features of the auditory discrimination situation, such as the “go—no-go” response contingency. Since neither overtraining nor drug habituation appears to be of great importance, it is suggested that the lesser effect of the drug in these experiments reflects the greater stability of visual than auditory habits in the monkey.

Earlier work has shown that meprobamate and reserpine can cause a severe deterioration in auditory discrimination performance of monkeys (Gross and Weiskrantz, 1961). This result was taken as supporting a hypothesis, growing out of still earlier research, that tranquillizers decrease the utilization of sensory information (Weiskrantz and Wilson, 1956; Weiskrantz, 1957).

The auditory task, as is almost always the case with monkeys as subjects, involved a “go—no-go” type of response contingency—i.e. the animal had to respond to the positive stimulus and had not to respond to the negative stimulus in order to achieve reward. It might be objected, therefore, that the deterioration in performance was associated not with discrimination as such but with the animals' willingness to perform at all. In fact, it was found that the animals tended to make most of their errors under the drugs by responding when they should not rather than not responding when they should.

The purpose of the present experiments, therefore, was to test the animals with a visual discrimination task in which both the positive and negative stimuli were presented simultaneously. An effect of the drug could not, in this situation, be characterized simply as altering the responsiveness of the animal. A further purpose in using visual stimuli was to test the generality of the earlier finding in a sense modality other than audition.