Relapse of operant behavior after response elimination with an extinction or an omission contingency

A comparison of renewal, spontaneous recovery, and reacquisition after punishment and extinction

Punishment and extinction are both effective methods of reducing instrumental responding and may involve similar learning mechanisms. To characterize the similarities and differences between them, we examined three well-established recovery or "relapse" effects -renewal, spontaneous recovery, and reacquisition - following either punishment or extinction of an instrumental response. In Experiment 1a, both punished and extinguished responses renewed to similar degrees following a context change at test (ABA renewal). In Experiment 1b, responding spontaneously recovered to similar degrees following punishment or extinction. In Experiment 2, responding was rapidly reacquired when the response was reinforced again following extinction but not following punishment, as predicted by the idea that the reinforcer delivered in reacquisition is part of the context of punishment, but not extinction. The results collectively suggest that both punishment and extinction produce similar context-dependent retroactive interference effects. More broadly, they also suggest that punished and extinguished responses may be equally likely to return following a change of context despite the intuition that punishment might provide a more extreme and effective means of suppressing behavior. To our knowledge, this is the first direct behavioral comparison of response recovery after punishment and extinction within individual experiments.

Partial reinforcement extinction and omission effects in the elimination and recovery of discriminated operant behavior

Three experiments explored how training reinforcement schedules and context influence the elimination and recovery of human operant behavior. In Experiment 1, participants learned a discriminated operant response in Context A before the response was eliminated with extinction in Context B. They then received a final test in each context. Groups were trained with a discriminative stimulus that predicted a reinforced response on either every trial (continuous reinforcement [CRF]) or some of the trials (partial reinforcement [PRF]). Extinction was slower following PRF training (a partial reinforcement extinction effect [PREE]) and extinguished responding increased when tested in Context A ("ABA" renewal). Experiment 2 further confirmed the PREE was obtained equally whether extinction occurred in the training context (Context A) or a new context (Context B) which is consistent with trial-based accounts of the PREE. Experiment 3 used the same design as Experiment 1 to evaluate the influence of training reinforcement on response elimination with an omission contingency. Across the omission training phase in Context B, the decrease in responding occurred more slowly in the PRF-trained group in comparison to the CRF-trained group, perhaps the first demonstration of what might be termed a PRF omission effect. Again, ABA renewal was observed in Context A. Training reinforcement schedule therefore had a similar influence on response elimination with extinction and omission. Elimination and recovery of human instrumental behavior, with extinction or omission, are influenced by training reinforcement schedule and context. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Learning to stop responding

Learning to stop responding is an important process that allows behavior to adapt to a changing and variable environment. This article reviews recent research in this laboratory and others that has studied how animals learn to stop responding in operant extinction, punishment, and feature-negative learning. Extinction and punishment are shown to be similar in two fundamental ways. First, the response-suppressing effects of both are highly context-specific. Second, the response-suppressing effects of both can be remarkably response-specific: Inhibition of one response transfers little to other responses. Learning to inhibit the response so specifically may result from the correction of "response error," the difference between the level of responding and what the current reinforcer supports. In contrast, the inhibition of responding that develops in feature-negative learning, where the response is reinforced during one discriminative stimulus (A) but not in a compound of A and stimulus B, is less response-specific: The inhibition of responding by stimulus B transfers and inhibits a second response, especially if the second response has itself been inhibited before. The results thus indicate both response-specific and response-general forms of behavioral inhibition. One possibility is that response-specific inhibition is learned when the circumstances encourage the organism to pay attention to the response-to what it is actually doing-as behavioral suppression is learned.

Relapse after incentivized choice treatment in humans: A laboratory model for studying behavior change

Behavior change interventions that incentivize desired behavior are highly effective for improving personal health, but difficult to maintain long term. Relapse is common and examining the mechanisms that contribute to relapse in experimental settings can identify processes relevant to substance abuse treatment. We developed a laboratory task that parallels a recent operant model of relapse after incentivized choice reported in the rodent laboratory. In two experiments, undergraduate participants first learned to make an operant response (keyboard button; R1) to earn a reinforcer consisting of an image of a preferred snack food (O1). In a second phase (Phase 2), R1 was still reinforced, but a new response (R2) was introduced and reinforced with a different reinforcer (a coin; O2). In a test phase, contingent incentives for R2 were removed (extinction) and relapse of R1 was assessed. Experiment 1 found that the O2 contingency suppressed R1 during Phase 2, and R1 relapsed rapidly in the test. Neither effect was consistently related to O2 value. Experiment 2 examined whether noncontingent presentations of O1 or O2 during the test could weaken relapse. Here, we found that noncontingent reinforcers did little to reduce or slow the increase in R1 responding. The present experiments highlight a laboratory approach to studying variables that may influence relapse after incentivized treatment. We identify and discuss areas for development to address differences between the present results and prior observations from animal and clinical studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

BEHAVIORAL AND NEUROBIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS OF PAVLOVIAN AND INSTRUMENTAL EXTINCTION LEARNING

This article reviews the behavioral neuroscience of extinction, the phenomenon in which a behavior that has been acquired through Pavlovian or instrumental (operant) learning decreases in strength when the outcome that reinforced it is removed. Behavioral research indicates that neither Pavlovian nor operant extinction depends substantially on erasure of the original learning but instead depends on new inhibitory learning that is primarily expressed in the context in which it is learned, as exemplified by the renewal effect. Although the nature of the inhibition may differ in Pavlovian and operant extinction, in either case the decline in responding may depend on both generalization decrement and the correction of prediction error. At the neural level, Pavlovian extinction requires a tripartite neural circuit involving the amygdala, prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus. Synaptic plasticity in the amygdala is essential for extinction learning, and prefrontal cortical inhibition of amygdala neurons encoding fear memories is involved in extinction retrieval. Hippocampal-prefrontal circuits mediate fear relapse phenomena, including renewal. Instrumental extinction involves distinct ensembles in corticostriatal, striatopallidal, and striatohypothalamic circuits as well as their thalamic returns for inhibitory (extinction) and excitatory (renewal and other relapse phenomena) control over operant responding. The field has made significant progress in recent decades, although a fully integrated biobehavioral understanding still awaits.