Effects of reinforcer distribution during response elimination on resurgence of an instrumental behavior.

Abstract

Resurgence has commonly been viewed as the recovery of an extinguished instrumental behavior that occurs when an alternative behavior that has replaced it is also extinguished. Three experiments with rat subjects examined the effects on resurgence of the temporal distribution of reinforcement for the alternative behavior that is presented while the first response is being eliminated. Experiments 1 and 2 examined resurgence when rich rates of reinforcement at the onset of response elimination became leaner over sessions (i.e., forward thinning) and when lean rates became richer (i.e., reverse thinning). Both procedures weakened resurgence compared to that in a group that received the richest rate during all sessions. However, forward thinning was more effective than reverse thinning at reducing the resurgence effect. Experiment 3 found that final resurgence was eliminated when the alternative behavior was reinforced and extinguished in alternating response elimination sessions. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that reinforcer delivery during response elimination provides a contextual stimulus for the extinction of the original behavior; its removal during resurgence testing causes ABC renewal to occur. The results are less consistent with an alternative account that emphasizes the removal of response disruption caused by alternative reinforcement (Shahan & Sweeney, 2011). Other theoretical and applied implications are discussed.

Discriminative properties of the reinforcer can be used to attenuate the renewal of extinguished operant behavior

“…According to the context hypothesis, resurgence occurs when reinforcement is removed because animals have learned to inhibit their responding in the context of alternative reinforcement (e.g., Bouton & Schepers, 2014; Schepers & Bouton, 2015; Winterbauer & Bouton, 2010). Thus, removing reinforcers changes the context sufficiently to produce a relapse similar to ABC renewal (e.g.…”

“…If resurgence occurs due to a lack of generalization between the context with reinforcers and the testing context without, then encouraging generalization between these two phases should theoretically decrease resurgence. Consistent with this idea, it has been shown across a wide array of experimental procedures that leaner schedules of R2 reinforcement (that should encourage greater generalization to the testing phase, where no reinforcers are delivered) do attenuate (and sometimes abolish) the resurgence effect (Bouton & Schepers, 2014; Bouton & Trask, 2015; Leitenberg et al, 1975; Schepers & Bouton, 2015; Sweeney & Shahan, 2013; Winterbauer & Bouton, 2012). …”

Role of the discriminative properties of the reinforcer in resurgence

“…Consistent with this prediction, resurgence is reduced by using very lean reinforcement rates during the response elimination phase (Leitenberg, Rawson, & Mulick, 1975; Sweeney & Shahan, 2013a). Resurgence (defined as an increase in responding from Phase 2 to testing) is also reduced by using schedules that are “thinned” from high rates to low rates across Phase 2 (Schepers & Bouton, 2015; Winterbauer & Bouton, 2012), although thinning itself can produce an increase in R1 responding (termed “early resurgence” by Winterbauer & Bouton, 2012). However, a reverse thinning procedure in which reinforcement rates start the phase at a lean rate and then increase during training also weakens resurgence (Bouton & Schepers 2014; Schepers & Bouton, 2015).…”

“…Resurgence (defined as an increase in responding from Phase 2 to testing) is also reduced by using schedules that are “thinned” from high rates to low rates across Phase 2 (Schepers & Bouton, 2015; Winterbauer & Bouton, 2012), although thinning itself can produce an increase in R1 responding (termed “early resurgence” by Winterbauer & Bouton, 2012). However, a reverse thinning procedure in which reinforcement rates start the phase at a lean rate and then increase during training also weakens resurgence (Bouton & Schepers 2014; Schepers & Bouton, 2015). Thus, contrary to the model, differences in resurgence have been demonstrated in experimental and control groups that receive the same rates of reinforcement for R2 in the final response elimination session.…”

“…Thus, contrary to the model, differences in resurgence have been demonstrated in experimental and control groups that receive the same rates of reinforcement for R2 in the final response elimination session. As a further example, Schepers and Bouton (2015, Experiment 3) gave one group of rats alternating response-elimination sessions in which R2 was reinforced (on VI 10-s) in odd-numbered sessions and extinguished in even-numbered sessions. After the final VI 10-s session, reinforcement was discontinued.…”