Examining effects of training duration on humans' resurgence and variability using a novel touchscreen procedure

Understanding resurgence and other emergent activity with the laws of allocation, induction, and covariance

Resurgence is defined as an increase in a previously extinguished target response (B1) resulting from the worsening of conditions for a more recently reinforced alternative response (B2). Worsening includes extinction or reductions in rate, amount, and immediacy of delivery of food or some other phylogenetically important event (PIE). In the first part of the article, we apply the laws of allocation, induction, and covariance to understand not only resurgence of operant activity previously covarying with the PIE (B1) but also a constellation of ontogenetic and phylogenetic activities both related to the PIE (B0) and unrelated to the PIE (BN). In the second part, we discuss how induction might be incorporated into and provide alternative processes within an existing matching-based framework, resurgence as choice (RaC). We begin to identify how this range of activities could depend on changes in the relative competitive weight (V) of all available activities (B1, B2, B0, BN) in addition to only those receiving explicit training (B1, B2). Future empirical and theoretical research is needed within this framework to provide a more complete understanding of resurgence and behavior more generally.

Evaluating effects of context changes on resurgence in humans

Laboratory models of relapse provide methods for evaluating challenges to behavioral treatments with differential reinforcement of an alternative response (DRA). Resurgence occurs with the worsening of conditions of reinforcement for appropriate behavior and renewal occurs when transitioning out of a treatment context. Across five experiments, participants recruited via online crowdsourcing pressed onscreen buttons to earn points exchangeable for money and contexts sometimes changed through changes in the background image. Returning to the training context (ABA, Experiment 1) and transitioning to a novel context (ABC, Experiment 2) produced greater resurgence when removing alternative reinforcement in comparison with remaining in the treatment context (ABB). In contrast, we observed little difference in resurgence among AAA, ABB, and AAC context manipulations (Experiment 3) and ABA, ABC, and AAC context manipulations (Experiment 4). In Experiment 5, we evaluated relative contributions of the presence versus absence of context changes (ABA vs. ABB) in combination with or without the removal of alternative reinforcement. Both changing context and removing alternative reinforcement increased responding in isolation and the combination produced greater-than-additive effects. Overall, the present findings demonstrate a consistent effect of removing alternative reinforcement on relapse that, under certain conditions, can be enhanced by context change.