Training reinforcement rates, resistance to extinction, and the role of context in reinstatement

Self Cite

Resurgence and reinstatement are laboratory models of relapse following treatments for problem behavior that arrange alternative sources of reinforcement, such as differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and noncontingent reinforcement. Resurgence models the elimination or reduction of reinforcers during treatment and reinstatement models the re-presentation of reinforcers previously maintaining problem behavior. The present study examined individual and combined effects of resurgence and reinstatement in a translational model of treatment relapse with three children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. We first reinforced and then extinguished an arbitrary response while providing access to a preferred toy to model a version of noncontingent reinforcement with extinction. In the following phases, we examined resurgence by removing the toy, reinstatement by presenting the training reinforcer response-independently, and a combination of resurgence and reinstatement. Overall, relapse of target responding reliably exceeded functionally similar responses never reinforced in the experimental situation. Most importantly, relapse tended to be greater when combining resurgence and reinstatement than when assessing either alone. These findings support previous studies showing that combinations of operations can increase treatment relapse. This translational model arranging simulated problem behavior with arbitrary tasks provides a platform from which to thoroughly and systematically assess methods for understanding and improving behavioral treatments.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the combined effects of resurgence and reinstatement in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder

Liggett

Nastri

Podlesnik

2018

Self Cite

“…As found in previous studies (e.g., Podlesnik & Bai, ; Podlesnik et al, 2012, ), the extent to which combining stimuli influenced resistance to extinction depended on the availability of an alternative source of reinforcement, again consistent with behavioral momentum theory (see Nevin & Grace, ). Training a target response in the presence of another concurrently available source of reinforcement (i.e., an enhanced stimulus–reinforcer relation) generally increases its resistance to extinction (e.g., Miranda‐Dukoski, Bensemann, & Podlesnik, ; Nevin & Grace, ). The present study showed that combining an alternative stimulus with a target stimulus associated with a richer history of reinforcement (i.e., DRA probe tests) produced greater resistance to extinction of target responding than combining it with a target stimulus associated with a leaner history of reinforcement (i.e., Combined probe tests).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Podlesnik

Miranda-Dukoski

Chan

et al. 2017

Self Cite

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.

“…During each session, we arranged three response‐independent hopper presentations during the first presentation of each component. Hopper presentations were arranged at the start of each component and separated by 5‐, 10‐ or 15‐s intervals, selected randomly from a list (see Miranda‐Dukoski et al, in press; Podlesnik & Fleet, ). Thus, we arranged six hopper presentations in each session of reinstatement during Condition A and nine hopper presentations in each session of reinstatement during Condition B.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After almost complete cessation of responding, pigeons were presented with two brief food presentations in each component at the beginning of sessions to assess relapse via a reinstatement operation (e.g., Reid, ). Responding increased in both components, but more relative to baseline response rates in the Rich Component (see also Miranda‐Dukoski, Bensemann, & Podlesnik, in press). The same pattern of results was then replicated using other relapse manipulations, including renewal (see also Berry, Sweeney, & Odum, ) and resurgence paradigms (see also Kuroda, Cançado, & Podlesnik, ; Podlesnik & Shahan, 2010; Thrailkill & Shahan, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Stimulus–reinforcer relations established during training determine resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement

Bai

Chan

Elliffe

et al. 2016

Self Cite

The baseline rate of a reinforced target response decreases with the availability of response-independent sources of alternative reinforcement; however, resistance to disruption and relapse increases. Because many behavioral treatments for problem behavior include response-dependent reinforcement of alternative behavior, the present study assessed whether response-dependent alternative reinforcement also decreases baseline response rates but increases resistance to extinction and relapse. We reinforced target responding at equal rates across two components of a multiple schedule with pigeons. We compared resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement of (1) a target response trained concurrently with a reinforced alternative response in one component with (2) a target response trained either concurrently or in separate components from the alternative response across conditions. Target response rates trained alone in baseline were higher but resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement tests were greater after training concurrently with the alternative response. In another assessment, training target and alternative responding together, but separating them during extinction and reinstatement tests, produced equal resistance to extinction and relapse. Together, these findings are consistent with behavioral momentum theory-operant response-reinforcer relations determined baseline response rates but Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations established during training determined resistance to extinction and relapse. These findings imply that reinforcing alternative behavior to treat problem behavior could initially reduce rates but increase persistence.