Hierarchical resurgence

Abstract

In resurgence, conventionally a target response is trained and then extinguished while some alternative response is reinforced. In the most common procedure, when the latter is extinguished, the former resurges. The present experiments examined resurgence after two responses were trained sequentially and subsequently extinguished. In Experiments 1 and 2, keypecking to one key was trained and then extinguished as keypecking to a different key was trained then later extinguished. In both experiments, regardless of the spatial location of the different keys, the last‐trained response resurged before the first‐trained one. The results were replicated in Experiment 3 where reinforcement rate of the first‐trained response was four times that of the second‐trained response. The results in conjunction with earlier experiments suggest that resurgence occurs hierarchically, although whether more or less recently trained target responses resurge first or later may depend on both current and historical variables. The results also raise questions about the interpretation of responding on a control key that sometimes is included in resurgence experiments to isolate resurgence from extinction‐induced responding.

Evaluating duration of baseline as a moderator of resurgence following serial training.

“…This is important, as a different lab used a different procedure on a different population and produced the same general finding of inconsistent outcomes following consistent execution of serial training. Relatedly, studies that have produced an apparently consistent effect (e.g., recency, Lambert et al, 2015; Lattal et al, 2019; or primacy, Lambert et al, 2017) all had small participant pools (three, three, and two, respectively), leaving open questions about the generality of such effects to the overarching population, as well as questions about the variables responsible for recency in some studies but primacy in others. In consideration of these uncertainties, future research might benefit from larger- N studies, as well as exploration of the source of inconsistent findings reported both within the present study and those previously mentioned.…”

“…Importantly, when a serially trained operant contacts extinction, it appears as though the sequences and magnitudes of resurgence of its constituent members can be orderly and potentially controlled, determined by the relative temporal relations of their respective histories of reinforcement (Lattal, Solley, Cançado, & Oliver, 2019; Mechner & Jones, 2011; Reed & Morgan, 2006). To the extent to which this is true, interventionists could use serial training to organize therapeutic progressions, which increase the probability of resurgence for certain response topographies (e.g., mands), while decreasing the probability of others (e.g., challenging behavior), under circumstances in which problem-behavior resurgence is likely (e.g., when initial mands for reinforcement contact extinction).…”

Relapse and its mitigation: Toward behavioral inoculation

“…Serial training is a process by which researchers teach and then subsequently extinguish newly acquired alternative responses in sequential fashion, until all desired topographies have been established, reinforced, and eliminated (except for the final topography). Like lag schedules, serial training appears to promote variability during periods of extinction (Gratz et al, 2018; Lambert et al 2015; Lambert et al, 2017; Lambert et al, 2020; Lattal et al, 2019; Mechner & Jones, 2011; Reed & Morgan, 2006; Schmitz et al, 2019).…”

The control response in assessing resurgence: Useful or compromised tool?

“…Experimental support for the occurrence of control responding as an instance of resurgence is found in an experiment by Lattal, Solley, Cançado, and Oliver (2019). They investigated what they called hierarchical resurgence with pigeons.…”