Using a Progressive Ratio Schedule of Reinforcement as an Assessment Tool to Inform Treatment

Abstract

A handful of studies have examined the utility of progressive ratio schedules (PRs) of reinforcement in treatment development and treatment efficacy. The current case study explored the utility of PRs as an assessment tool to inform a differential reinforcement treatment package. A PRs assessment was used to identify the breaking point of a functional communicative response before and after treatment. The breaking point was used as the initial reinforcement schedule during treatment. Following treatment, the communicative response increased during a posttest PRs assessment, suggesting the efficacy of the treatment package.Keywords Behavior analysis . Progressive ratio schedule . Differential reinforcement . Behavioral assessment A progressive ratio (PR) schedule of reinforcement is defined by an increasing response requirement for reinforcer delivery over successive sessions (DeLeon et al. 1997), or trial-by-trial basis within a single session (Hodos 1961;Roane 2008). For instance, when a child emits a predetermined number of responses (e.g., hand raising five times in a classroom), a reinforcer is delivered (e.g., teacher calls on child). After delivery of the reinforcer, subsequent response requirements can increase a variety of ways, including stepwise (e.g., increasing the number of responses from 5 to 6, then 7, then 8, and so forth), algorithmic (e.g., additively or geometrically), response topography (e.g., specific target response either occurs or stops occurring), session-termination criteria (e.g., specific amount of time elapses between responses, or after a total amount of time elapses within the session), and the amount of reinforces delivered (see also Roane, 2008 for similar overview). Stepwise increases in response requirements have been useful in identifying preference for stimuli used as reinforcers across increased response requirements (Tustin 1994;DeLeon et al. 1997), and reinforcer efficacy across differentiated response requirements (Roane et al. 2001).Clinical applications of PR schedules of reinforcement can also be effective during treatment development. Identification of schedule effects can be useful for clinicians to determine relative reinforcement schedules for both problem and replacement behaviors. For example, DeLeon et al. (2000) used a PR schedule to directly inform the development of a treatment for aggression (set on a PR schedule of reinforcement ranging from 1 to 20 responses per requirement for reinforcer delivery) and functional communication (set on a fixed ratio 1 reinforcement schedule). When reinforcement schedules were equally probable, both aggression and mands were emitted equally. However, frequency of mands exceeded aggression when the reinforcement schedules were unequal (FR1 to FR20 for mands and aggression, respectively).While PR schedules have been used to identify relative probability of one response over a second response, to date, minimal research has shown how PRs can be used to inform treatment and the extent to which treatment can Implications...

Activation of the mGlu1 metabotropic glutamate receptor has antipsychotic-like effects and is required for efficacy of M4 muscarinic receptor allosteric modulators

“…Tests for locomotor activity [29], prepulse inhibition (PPI) of the acoustic startle reflex [30], motivated behavior [31], rotarod and TreadScan were conducted, as previously described and outlined in supplemental materials. Randomizations were performed for counter-balanced behavioral assays by alternating mice based on mouse number.…”

“…Since reductions in DA D 1 signaling have been implicated in reduced motivation [48,52,53], we determined the effects of the mGlu 1 PAM (VU6004909), M 4 PAM (VU0467154), and the typical antipsychotic haloperidol on motivational responding in a traditional progressive ratio (PR) schedule [31], where rodents need to nose poke for a 30% Strawberry Ensure solution (Fig. 5a).…”

Within‐ and across‐session increases in work requirement do not produce similar response output

“…Despite these potential benefits, there are several costs that should be considered when working with vulnerable populations such as individuals with IDD, who comprise a substantial portion of the clinical applications of PR schedules published to date, and for whom the use of PR schedules has been suggested to be incorporated into clinical practice (Wilson & Gratz, 2016). Several researchers have questioned the clinical utility of PR reinforcer assessments given the number of unknown variables with respect to general procedural arrangements (Poling, 2010;Reed et al, 2013;Russell et al, 2018).…”