Although developed from a common antecedent, conditioned place preference (CPP) and intravenous drug self-administration (SA) represent different behavioral paradigms, each with strong face validity. The field has treated results from these studies largely interchangeably; however, there is considerable evidence of opposite modulation of CPP vs. SA. This review outlines four manipulations that differentially affect CPP and SA based on alterations of motivation. These examples are contrasted with one example of differential CPP and SA results that can be explained by simple parallel shifts in dose-response functions. The final two examples have yet to be classified as motivation-based or parallel shifts. Important aspects, including motivation, volitional control of drug administration, reward, and the role of cues are discussed. One major conclusion of this paper is that explanations for apparent discrepancies between CPP and SA require full dose effect functions and assessment of PR breakpoints. Overall, this manuscript offers a more nuanced insight into how CPP and SA can be used to study different aspects of substance use disorders.

尽管从一个共同的前因发展而来，条件位置偏好 (CPP) 和静脉注射药物自我给药 (SA) 代表了不同的行为范式，每个范式都具有很强的表面效度。该领域在很大程度上可以互换地处理这些研究的结果。然而，有相当多的证据表明 CPP 与 SA 的调制相反。本综述概述了基于动机改变对 CPP 和 SA 产生不同影响的四种操作。这些例子与一个不同的 CPP 和 SA 结果的例子形成对比，后者可以通过剂量反应函数的简单平行移动来解释。最后两个例子还没有被归类为基于动机的或平行的转变。讨论了重要方面，包括动机、药物管理的意志控制、奖励和线索的作用。本文的一个主要结论是，对 CPP 和 SA 之间明显差异的解释需要完整的剂量效应函数和 PR 断点的评估。总体而言，这份手稿对 CPP 和 SA 如何用于研究物质使用障碍的不同方面提供了更细致入微的见解。