Role of the discriminative properties of the reinforcer in resurgence

Abstract

Three experiments with rat subjects examined the effects of the discriminative effects of reinforcers that were presented during or after operant extinction. Experiments 1 and 2 examined resurgence, in which an extinguished operant response (R1) recovers when a second behavior (R2) that has been reinforced to replace it is also placed on extinction. The results of Experiment 1 suggest that the amount of R1’s resurgence is a decreasing linear function of the interreinforcement interval used during the reinforcement of R2. In Experiment 2, R1 was reinforced with one outcome (O1) and R2 was then reinforced with a second outcome (O2) while R1 was extinguished. In resurgence tests, response-independent (noncontingent) presentations of O2 prevented resurgence of R1, which otherwise occurred when testing was conducted with either no reinforcers or noncontingent presentations of O1. Experiment 3 then examined the effects of noncontingent O1 and O2 presentations after simple extinction in either the presence or absence of noncontingent presentations of O2. Overall, the results are consistent with a role for the discriminative properties of the reinforcer in controlling operant behavior. In resurgence, the reinforcer used during response elimination provides a distinct context that controls inhibition of R1. The results are less consistent with an alternative view emphasizing the disrupting effects of alternative reinforcement.

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

“…In a complementary way, rats first tested with O1 presentations showed a significant renewal effect, whereas rats first tested with O2 presentations did not. This pattern, coupled with previous findings suggesting that reinforcers delivered independently of responding during or after extinction do not usually suppress responding (e.g., Baker, 1990; Bouton & Trask, 2015; Rescorla & Skucy, 1969; Winterbauer & Bouton, 2011), suggests that in order for a reinforcer to attenuate ABA renewal, it needs to be a feature of extinction learning. The results are not consistent with the idea that the results of Experiment 1 were due to O2 unconditionally eliciting competing behaviors, or otherwise disrupting operant responding (e.g., Shahan & Sweeney, 2011); in that case, O1 should have been equally effective here.…”

“…It is worth noting that the earlier studies did not use different reinforcers in conditioning and extinction as we did here. However, in a related design, Bouton and Trask (2015; Experiment 3) found that animals that received free presentations of an O2 reinforcer during extinction after initial acquisition with O1 likewise showed no augmenting effect of O1 presentations during a final test. Given these results, it seems that free reinforcer presentations in extinction may have an effect on the ability of similar reinforcers to augment or reinstate extinguished responding.…”

“…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). …”

“…In a direct test of the idea that removal of reinforcers in the resurgence paradigm causes renewal through context change, Bouton and Trask (2015, Experiment 2) found that distinct reinforcers associated with extinction can serve as an effective cue to inhibit operant responding. In that experiment, rats were taught to perform a response (R1) for a distinct outcome (O1).…”

Context Change Explains Resurgence After the Extinction of Operant Behavior

“…Nevertheless, Sweeney and Shahan (2013a) also found no evidence of resurgence following a VI 100-s reinforcement schedule. A recent study in our laboratory (Bouton & Trask, 2015) found significant resurgence following VI 30-s and VI 60-s schedules of reinforcement for R2 during Phase 2, but no resurgence in groups that received relatively lean VI 90-s and VI 120-s rates over the phase. Moreover, the strength of resurgence was shown statistically to be a decreasing linear function of the VI parameter.…”