Generalization of the disruptive effects of alternative stimuli when combined with target stimuli in extinction

Abstract

Differential-reinforcement treatments reduce target problem behavior in the short term but at the expense of making it more persistent long term. Basic and translational research based on behavioral momentum theory suggests that combining features of stimuli governing an alternative response with the stimuli governing target responding could make target responding less persistent. However, changes to the alternative stimulus context when combining alternative and target stimuli could diminish the effectiveness of the alternative stimulus in reducing target responding. In an animal model with pigeons, the present study reinforced responding in the presence of target and alternative stimuli. When combining the alternative and target stimuli during extinction, we altered the alternative stimulus through changes in line orientation. We found that (1) combining alternative and target stimuli in extinction more effectively decreased target responding than presenting the target stimulus on its own; (2) combining these stimuli was more effective in decreasing target responding trained with lower reinforcement rates; and (3) changing the alternative stimulus reduced its effectiveness when it was combined with the target stimulus. Therefore, changing alternative stimuli (e.g., therapist, clinical setting) during behavioral treatments that combine alternative and target stimuli could reduce the effectiveness of those treatments in disrupting problem behavior.

An evaluation of resurgence following functional communication training conducted in alternative antecedent contexts via telehealth

“…By the second test of resurgence during the present study, those criteria were met by the remaining participants. Again, the effects of first establishing FCT in alternative contexts resulted in at least as or more effective intervention than a traditional implementation of FCT, which is consistent with previous studies of this approach (e.g., Mace et al, 2010;Podlesnik et al, 2012Podlesnik et al, , 2016Podlesnik et al, , 2017b. Additionally, only two participants in Wacker et al showed persistence of independent manding in the first test of resurgence, but independent manding did not persist for any of the participants in the second test of resurgence.…”

“…This possibility is consistent with predictions of the model of resurgence, based on BMT, proposed by Shahan and Sweeney (2011) and supported by the preliminary results of Fisher et al (2018). Second, several laboratory studies equated exposure to reinforcement in alternative contexts versus the treatment context and observed reduced persistence of target responding with training in alternative contexts (e.g., Craig, Cunningham, Sweeney, Shahan, & Nevin, 2018;Podlesnik et al, 2012Podlesnik et al, , 2016Podlesnik et al, , 2017b. However, two lines of evidence argue against this interpretation.…”

“…First, the within-subject design for treatment (Phase 4) was arranged as a reversal design between FCT and tests of resurgence similar to Wacker et al (2011). Furthermore, clinical studies might also expose participants to both standard FCT and FCT-alternative contexts within a multiple schedules design, which has been typical in translational studies with laboratory animals (e.g., Craig et al, 2018;Podlesnik et al, 2012Podlesnik et al, , 2016Podlesnik et al, , 2017b; see also Mace et al, 2010). However, the lack of a reversal (i.e., resurgence) during the first test of resurgence for Cade and Mark, although desirable clinically, obscured the ability to make conclusions about control by contingencies.…”

Assessing the repeatability of resurgence in humans: Implications for the use of within‐subject designs

“…Figure shows the proportions of baseline (following the correction used by Podlesnik et al, ) across successive exposures to extinction. Generally, the magnitude of the resurgence effect was greater during the first exposure to extinction than the second, although responding recovered (resurged) to some extent during both exposures for most participants.…”

“…Second, to determine whether there were site differences, we conducted an independent-samples t-test to compare aggregated responding during the extinction phases for participants who completed the experiments at each location (WVU and WMU). Figure 1 shows the proportions of baseline (following the correction used by Podlesnik et al, 2017) across successive exposures to extinction. Generally, the magnitude of the resurgence effect was greater during the first exposure to extinction than the second, although responding recovered (resurged) to some extent during both exposures for most participants.…”