Determinants of Response Recovery in Extinction Following Response Elimination

Hemmes, Nancy S.; Brown, Bruce L.; Jakubow, James J.; Vaca, Soledad Cabeza de

doi:10.1006/lmot.1997.0983

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Resurgence has been demonstrated using various types of responses, such as those that were respondently conditioned (Epstein & Skinner, 1980) or a product of self-generated rules (Dixon & Hayes, 1998), yet the controlling variables of resurgence remain largely unstudied. Several experimental analyses of resurgence have assessed effects of variables in the elimination and resurgence conditions (e.g., Doughty, da Silva, & Lattal, 2007;Hemmes, Brown, Jakubow, & de Vaca, 1997;Lieving & Lattal, 2003;Pacitti & Smith, 1977), but the contribution of variables in the reinforcement condition to resurgence has received relatively less attention. In two groups of rats, Carey (1951) assessed rats' bar-pressing under extinction following reinforcement of single and double responses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent Resurgence and Behavioral History

Silva

Maxwell

Lattal

2008

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contribution of past experiences to concurrent resurgence was investigated in three experiments. In Experiment 1, resurgence was related to the length of reinforcement history as well as the reinforcement schedule that previously maintained responding. Specifically, more resurgence occurred when key pecks had been reinforced on a variable-interval 1-min schedule than a variable-interval 6-min schedule, but this effect may have been due either to the differential reinforcement rates or differential response rates under the two schedules. When reinforcement rates were similar (Experiment 2), there was more resurgence of high-rate than low-rate responding. When response rates were similar (Experiment 3), resurgence was not related systematically to prior reinforcement rates. Taken together, these three experimental tests of concurrent resurgence illustrate that prior response rates are better predictors of resurgence than are prior reinforcement rates.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent Resurgence and Behavioral History

Silva

Maxwell

Lattal

2008

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pavlov found, however, that extinction learning tends to be transient, and is subject to spontaneous recovery over time (Pavlov, 1927, p. 58). This finding suggests that much of the original excitatory learning remained intact following extinction, and has been supported by more recent behavioral tests (e.g., Bouton, 1993;Hemmes, Brown, Jakubow, & Cabeza de Vaca, 1997;Pavlov, 1927;Rescorla, 1996). The transient (spontaneous recovery) or fragile (e.g., renewal, reinstatement, resurgence) nature of extinction learning indicates that once acquired, a CS-US association may be weakened, but cannot be erased.…”

mentioning

confidence: 62%

Extinction and spontaneous recovery of spatial behavior in pigeons.

Leising¹,

Wong²,

Blaisdell³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated extinction and spontaneous recovery of spatial associations using a landmark-based appetitive search task in a touchscreen preparation with pigeons. Four visual landmarks (A, B, C, and D) were separately established as signals of a hidden reinforced target among an 8×7 array of potential target locations. The target was located above Landmarks A and C and below B and D. After conditioning, A and B were extinguished. Responding to A and C was assessed on probe tests 2 days following extinction, whereas, B and D were tested 14 days after extinction. We observed spontaneous recovery from spatial extinction following a 14-day, but not a 2-day, post-extinction retention interval. Furthermore, by plotting the spatial distribution of responding across the X and Y-axes during testing, we found that spontaneous recovery of responding to the target in our task was due to enhanced spatial control (i.e., a change in the overall distribution of responses) following the long delay to testing. These results add spatial extinction and spontaneous recovery to the list of findings supporting the assertion that extinction involves new learning that attenuates the originally acquired response, and that original learning of the spatial relationship between paired events survives extinction.

show abstract

“…As would be predicted by retrieval cue theory, recovery in pigeon autoshaping also appears to depend on a previously reinforced CS's acquiring an inhibitory association in the response elimination stage (i.e., CS-US, followed by CS-no-US). Recently, Hemmes et al (1997) reported that recovery of autoshaped keypecking after backward pairings is influenced by the probability of the US following the CS in conditioning, a result that is also accommodated by retrieval cue theory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Other methods for response elimination have received less attention. For example, the CS and US can be presented independently of one another (e.g., Ayres, Mahoney, Proulx, & Benedict, 1976;Durlach, 1986;Lindblom & Jenkins, 1981), or the CS can be presented in a backward arrangement at the termination ofthe US (e.g., Burdick & James, 1973;Durlach, 1986;Hemmes, Brown, Jakubow, & Cabeza de Vaca, 1997). These alternative methods for eliminating the CR also result in a type of recovery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of conditioned suppression after backward pairings

Williams

Sly

1999

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four conditioned suppression experiments with rats (Rattus norvegicus), backward pairings of a shock unconditioned stimulus (US) and a tone conditioned stimulus (CS) eliminated an already established conditioned response (CR), but there was recovery of the CRifthe shock was later withheld. In Experiment 1, there was recovery after backward pairings, regardless of whether the period after the US was normally shock free or not In Experiment 2, the occurrence of recovery depended on the CS's being presented closely after the US in response elimination. Levels of recovery were positively correlated with the resistance ofthe response to elimination during backward pairings (Experiments 3 and 4). Taken together, these data support the notion that recovery after backward pairings is a form of renewal (see, e.g., Bouton, 1991) and is not due to protectionfrom extinction.The usual method for eliminating an already established conditioned response (CR) is to present the conditioned stimulus (CS) in the absence of the unconditioned stimulus (US). With this method, extinction, the probability of the CR decreases over trials, although there is some tendency for responding to spontaneously recover if the animal is returned to the conditioning context after a rest period (see, e.g., Pavlov, 1927;Robbins, 1990). Other methods for response elimination have received less attention.

show abstract

Determinants of Response Recovery in Extinction Following Response Elimination

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Concurrent Resurgence and Behavioral History

Concurrent Resurgence and Behavioral History

Extinction and spontaneous recovery of spatial behavior in pigeons.

Recovery of conditioned suppression after backward pairings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About