Mechanisms of renewal after the extinction of discriminated operant behavior.

Abstract

Three experiments demonstrated, and examined the mechanisms that underlie, the renewal of extinguished discriminated operant behavior. In Experiment 1, rats were trained to perform one response (lever press or chain pull) in the presence of one discriminative stimulus (S; light or tone) in Context A, and to perform the other response in the presence of the other S in Context B. Next, each of the original S/response combinations was extinguished in the alternate context. When the S/response combinations were tested back in the context in which they had been trained, responding in the presence of S returned (an ABA renewal effect was observed). This renewal could not be due to differential context-reinforcer associations, suggesting instead that the extinction context inhibits either the response and/or the effectiveness of the S. Consistent with the latter mechanism, in Experiment 2, ABA renewal was still observed when both the extinction and renewal contexts inhibited the same response. However, in Experiment 3, previous extinction of the response in the renewing context (occasioned by a different S) reduced AAB renewal more than did extinction of the different response. Taken together, the results suggest at least two mechanisms of renewal after instrumental extinction. First, extinction performance is at least partly controlled by a direct inhibitory association that is formed between the context and the response. Second, in the discriminated operant procedure, extinction performance can sometimes be partly controlled by a reduction in the effectiveness of the S in the extinction context. Renewal of discriminated operant behavior can be produced by a release from either of these forms of inhibition.

Extinction of chained instrumental behaviors: Effects of procurement extinction on consumption responding.

“…The results of Experiment 2 replicated the procurement extinction effect, and further demonstrated that making the procurement response played a necessary role in producing the effect; nonreinforced exposure to the procurement SD alone did not weaken the consumption response. The role of the response in extinction implied by that result may be consistent with previous work from this laboratory suggesting that learning to inhibit the response is especially important in instrumental extinction (Bouton et al, 2011; Todd et al, 2014). Experiment 3 then trained two separate discriminated heterogeneous chains and found that extinction of one of the two procurement responses selectively weakened the consumption response that had been associated with it.…”

“…Recent studies have identified an important role for the response in instrumental extinction learning (Bouton, Todd, Vurbic, & Winterbauer, 2011; Todd, 2013; Todd, Vurbic, & Bouton, 2014). Making the response in extinction may be necessary to extinguish it (cf.…”

Occasion setting, inhibition, and the contextual control of extinction in Pavlovian and instrumental (operant) learning

“…Occasion setting can also play a role in operant learning, which is the paradigm, of course, where Skinner first coined the term (1938). Our recent work, however, suggests that negative occasion setting may not play as significant a role in the extinction of operant behavior, because there is surprisingly little transfer of the context’s control of inhibition of one response to other responses (Bouton et al, 2016; Todd, 2013; see also Todd et al, 2014). Instead, the most parsimonious explanation of the results may be that operant extinction involves direct inhibition of the response by the context.…”

“…Todd, Vurbic, and Bouton (2014) reported evidence that the response inhibition suggested above is indeed controlled by the context. The design of their Experiment 3 is summarized in Table 4.…”

The Fallacy of Placing Confidence in Confidence Intervals

“…This is not a mere theoretical issue; moderatelysized p values often occur. In a cursory review of papers citing Steiger (2004), we found many that obtained and reported, without note, suspect confidence intervals bounded at 0 (e.g., Cumming, Sherar, Gammon, Standage, & Malina, 2012;Gilroy & Pearce 2014;Hamerman & Morewedge,2015;Lahiri, Maloney, Rogers, & Ge, 2013;Hamerman & Morewedge, 2015;Todd, Vurbic, & Bouton, 2014;Winter et al, 2014). The others did not use confidence intervals, instead relying on point estimates of effect size and p values (e.g., Hollingdale & Greitemeyer, 2014); but from the p values it could be inferred that if they had followed "good practice" and computed such confidence intervals, they would have obtained intervals that according to Steiger could not be interpreted as anything but an inverted F test.…”