Resurgence as Choice (RaC) is a quantitative theory suggesting that an increase in an extinguished target behavior with subsequent extinction of an alternative behavior (i.e., resurgence) is governed by the same processes as choice more generally. We present data from an experiment with rats examining a range of treatment durations with alternative reinforcement plus extinction and demonstrate that increases in treatment duration produce small but reliable decreases in resurgence. Although RaC predicted the relation between target responding and treatment duration, the model failed in other respects. First, contrary to predictions, the present experiment also replicated previous findings that exposure to cycling on/off alternative reinforcement reduces resurgence. Second, RaC did a poor job simultaneously accounting for target and alternative behaviors across conditions. We present a revised model incorporating a role for more local signaling effects of reinforcer deliveries or their absence on response allocation. Such signaling effects are suggested to impact response allocation above and beyond the values of the target and alternative behaviors as longer-term repositories of experience. The new model provides an excellent account of the data and can be viewed as an integration of RaC and a quantitative approximation of some aspects of Context Theory.
Resurgence is defined as an increase in the frequency of a previously reinforced target response when an alternative source of reinforcement is suspended. Despite an extensive body of research examining factors that affect resurgence, the effects of alternative-reinforcer magnitude have not been examined. Thus, the present experiments aimed to fill this gap in the literature. In Experiment 1, rats pressed levers for single-pellet reinforcers during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target-lever pressing was extinguished, and alternative-lever pressing produced either five-pellet, one-pellet, or no alternative reinforcement. In Phase 3, alternative reinforcement was suspended to test for resurgence. Five-pellet alternative reinforcement produced faster elimination and greater resurgence of target-lever pressing than one-pellet alternative reinforcement. In Experiment 2, effects of decreasing alternative-reinforcer magnitude on resurgence were examined. Rats pressed levers and pulled chains for six-pellet reinforcers during Phases 1 and 2, respectively. In Phase 3, alternative reinforcement was decreased to three pellets for one group, one pellet for a second group, and suspended altogether for a third group. Shifting from six-pellet to one-pellet alternative reinforcement produced as much resurgence as suspending alternative reinforcement altogether, while shifting from six pellets to three pellets did not produce resurgence. These results suggest that alternative-reinforcer magnitude has effects on elimination and resurgence of target behavior that are similar to those of alternative-reinforcer rate. Thus, both suppression of target behavior during alternative reinforcement and resurgence when conditions of alternative reinforcement are altered may be related to variables that affect the value of the alternative-reinforcement source.
Relapse following removal of an alternative source of reinforcement introduced during extinction of a target behavior is called resurgence. This form of relapse may be related to relapse of drug taking following loss of alternative non-drug reinforcement in human populations. Laboratory investigations of factors mediating resurgence with food-maintained behavior suggest higher rates of alternative reinforcement produce faster suppression of target behavior but paradoxically generate more relapse when alternative reinforcement is discontinued. At present, it is unknown if a similar effect occurs when target behavior is maintained by drug reinforcement and the alternative is a non-drug reinforcer. In the present experiment three groups of rats were trained to lever press for infusions of cocaine during baseline. Next, during treatment, cocaine reinforcement was suspended and an alternative response was reinforced with either high-rate, low-rate, or no alternative food reinforcement. Finally, all reinforcement was suspended to test for relapse of cocaine seeking. Higher rate alternative reinforcement produced faster elimination of cocaine seeking than lower rates or extinction alone, but when treatment was suspended resurgence of cocaine seeking occurred following only high-rate alternative reinforcement. Thus, although higher rate alternative reinforcement appears to more effectively suppress drug seeking, should it become unavailable, it can have the unfortunate effect of increasing relapse.
Provision of alternative non-drug reinforcement is among the most effective methods for treating substance use disorders. However, when alternative reinforcers become unavailable during treatment interruptions or upon cessation of treatment, relapse often occurs. Relapse following the loss of alternative reinforcement is known as resurgence. One factor that could reduce resurgence is longer duration of treatment with alternative reinforcement, but the available data are mixed. Further, the effects of length of treatment have previously only been examined with food seeking. The present experiments directly examined if duration of treatment impacted the magnitude of resurgence of cocaine or alcohol seeking in rats. First, rats were trained to self-administer cocaine (Experiment 1) or alcohol (Experiment 2) by performing a target behavior. Second, target behavior was extinguished and performing an alternative behavior produced an alternative non-drug (i.e., food) reinforcer. Finally, resurgence was assessed following removal of alternative reinforcement after either 5 or 20 sessions of treatment. Treatment duration did not differentially affect resurgence of cocaine seeking in Experiment 1 or Alcohol seeking in Experiment 2. These results suggest that extended treatment with alternative non-drug reinforcement may not decrease propensity to relapse. Further, these results may have implications for treatment of substance use disorders and for theories of resurgence.
Substance use disorder (SUD) is characterized, in part by behavior biased toward drug use and away from natural sources of reward (e.g., social interaction, food, sex). The neurobiological underpinnings of SUDs reveal distinct brain regions where neuronal activity is necessary for the manifestation of SUD-characteristic behaviors. Studies that specifically examine how these regions are involved in behaviors motivated by drug versus natural reward allow determinations of which regions are necessary for regulating seeking of both reward types, and appraisals of novel SUD therapies for off-target effects on behaviors motivated by natural reward. Here, we evaluate studies directly comparing regulatory roles for specific brain regions in drug versus natural reward. While it is clear that many regions drive behaviors motivated by all reward types, based on the literature reviewed we propose a set of interconnected regions that become necessary for behaviors motivated by drug, but not natural rewards. The circuitry is selectively necessary for drug seeking includes an Action/Reward subcircuit, comprising nucleus accumbens, ventral pallidum, and ventral tegmental area, a Prefrontal subcircuit comprising prelimbic, infralimbic, and insular cortices, a Stress subcircuit comprising the central nucleus of the amygdala and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, and a Diencephalon circuit including lateral hypothalamus. Evidence was mixed for nucleus accumbens shell, insular cortex, and ventral pallidum. Studies for all other brain nuclei reviewed supported a necessary role in regulating both drug and natural reward seeking. Finally, we discuss emerging strategies to further disambiguate the necessity of brain regions in drug-versus natural reward-associated behaviors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.