Limitations of occasional reinforced extinction to alleviate spontaneous recovery and reinstatement effects: Evidence for a trial-signalling mechanism

Abstract

Fear extinction is not permanent but is instead more vulnerable than the original fear memory, as traditionally shown by the return of fear phenomena. Because of this, techniques to mitigate the return of fear are needed in the clinical treatment of related psychological conditions. One promising strategy is the occasional reinforced extinction treatment, introducing a gradual and sparse number of CS-US pairings within the extinction treatment. We present the results of three experiments in which we used a threat conditioning procedure in humans. Our main aim was to evaluate whether occasional reinforced extinction could reduce two different forms of relapse: spontaneous recovery (Experiments 1 and 2) and reinstatement (Experiment 3). Contrary to our predictions and previous literature, the results indicate that an occasional reinforcement treatment did not mitigate relapse compared with standard extinction. From a theoretical standpoint, these results are more consistent with the idea that extinction entails the acquisition of new knowledge than with the idea that there are conditions in which extinction leads to a weakening of the original fear memory. These findings also question the generality of the potential benefits of using occasional reinforced extinction in clinical settings.

Occasional Reinforced Extinction as a Method for Relapse Prevention: A Critical Systematic Review and Future Directions

“…For instance, although both Culver et al (2018) and Thompson et al (2018) found evidence of a reduced spontaneous recovery, the former did so on SCR and expectancy ratings, whereas the latter only found a benefit on SCR. 4 Regarding reacquisition, Culver et al (2018) could only find an effect on the SCR measure, at odds with other studies (see Morís et al, 2017;Quintero et al, 2022;van den Akker et al, 2015), where the rate of reacquisition was slowed down when measured as expectancy ratings.…”

“…The results of an occasional reinforced intervention on the reacquisition of the conditioned response tend to be the most consistent, with six out of eight experiments finding a significant effect, both in animals and in humans, and using either appetitive or aversive procedures. Results regarding other relapse phenomena tend to be less reliable, with some tests showing beneficial effects of ORE on the prevention or reduction of spontaneous recovery (Gershman et al, 2013;Thompson et al, 2018) or reinstatement (Gershman et al, 2013;Shiban et al, 2015), while others did not (see Quintero et al, 2022, andThompson et al, 2018). Finally, only one article has studied renewal after ORE, finding no significant results (Lipp et al, 2021).…”

“…Thompson et al (2018) found that ORE eliminated spontaneous recovery, in comparison to a standard extinction condition, but only as measured with SCR. Finally, Quintero et al (2022) failed to find a prevention or reduction of the spontaneous recovery of expectancy ratings in two experiments. Lipp et al (2021) is, to this date, the only study investigating the effects of occasional reinforcement during extinction on the renewal of the conditioned response.…”

“…We also observed great differences in the procedures used with human samples. For instance, the number of acquisition trials varies, with studies including five (van den Akker et al, 2015), six (Thompson et al, 2018), eight (Culver et al, 2018;Lipp et al, 2021;Morís et al, 2017, Experiments 2 and 3;Quintero et al, 2022), eighteen (Morís et al, 2017, Experiment 1;Shiban et al, 2015), or even forty trials (Dunsmoor et al, 2018) per stimulus (CS + or CS−). Note, however, that the procedure used by Dunsmoor et al' is slightly different from the other studies included in this review, as it follows a category conditioning preparation (i.e., they use CS categories, such as tools or animals, rather than specific stimuli) that requires the presentation of a large number of trials from each category.…”

Evaluating the effects of counterconditioning, novelty-facilitated, and standard extinction on the spontaneous recovery of threat expectancy and conditioned stimulus valence

“…Exclusion criteria. As in Morís et al (2017; Experiment 3) and Quintero et al (2022), we used some rejection criteria to exclude from further analyses data from participants who had a poor understanding of the contingencies programmed. In those two previous studies, the criteria were based on the distribution of data obtained for each group, removing participants that deviated more than two standard deviations in several measures.…”