Resurgence without overall worsening of alternative reinforcement

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.

Punishment-induced resurgence

The phenomenon of extinction-induced resurgence is well established, but there is comparatively little experimental evidence for punishment-induced resurgence. Punishment-induced resurgence can by tested by contingent shocks following the alternative response. The purpose of Experiment 1 was to test whether low-intensity shocks, that do not decrease rate of reinforcement, result in resurgence. Four rats served as subjects. Rats were exposed to three sequential conditions: (a) variable-interval (VI) 30-s food delivery for a lever press (target response); (b) VI 30-s food delivery for a nose poke (alternative response) and extinction of the lever press; (c) VI 30-s reinforcement for a nose poke with superimposed VI 60-s shock delivery. In the final condition, shocks increased gradually from 0.1 to 0.5 mA. Experiment 2 evaluated whether an abrupt introduction of a high-intensity shock would result in resurgence. Three rats served as subjects and were exposed to three sequential conditions: (a) VI 30-s food delivery for a lever press; (b) VI 30-s food delivery for a nose poke and extinction of the lever press; (c) continued VI 30-s reinforcement for a nose poke with superimposed VI 60-s 0.6 mA shock delivery. Resurgence was observed in all subjects, including in situations in which rate of responding, but not rate of reinforcement, decreased. The present study provides additional evidence for punishment-induced resurgence, but future studies are warranted to determine the extent to which punishment can produce resurgence with or without decreases in rates of reinforcement.

Resurgence and Behavioral Contrast, Compared and Contrasted

This is a review of the relation between operant response resurgence and behavioral contrast. Both are defined by rate changes in a target response as a function of environmental changes spatially or temporally distal to the location of the target response. The typical procedures for investigating these two phenomena differ in that (1) resurgence is studied using concurrent schedules and behavioral contrast predominantly with multiple schedules and (2) resurgence is assessed against an extinction baseline of the target response and behavioral contrast has been assessed under a variety of reinforcement schedules. The distinctions between concurrent and multiple schedules, however, may be ones of degree rather than kind. Research into both phenomena reveals considerable overlap in the controlling variables of the two. With certain caveats, resurgence appears to be an instance of behavioral contrast measured against an extinction baseline. Because of Point 2 above, most instances of behavioral contrast do not meet the definition of resurgence. Investigating resurgence while maintaining target responding by a schedule of reinforcement might be useful, but such a procedure would not qualify as resurgence because it violates the definition of resurgence as the return of a previously reinforced but currently extinguished response. Several implications of the similarities and differences between the two are discussed.

A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Procedures and Analyses Used in Basic and Preclinical Studies of Resurgence, 1970-2020

Resurgence is the return of a previously reinforced response as conditions worsen for an alternative response, such as the introduction of extinction, reductions in reinforcement, or punishment. As a procedure, resurgence has been used to model behavioral treatments and understand behavioral processes contributing both to relapse of problem behavior and flexibility during problem-solving. Identifying existing procedural and analytic methods arranged in basic/preclinical research could be used by basic and preclinical researchers to develop novel approaches to study resurgence, whereas translational and clinical researchers could identify potential approaches to combating relapse during behavioral interventions. Despite the study of resurgence for over half a century, there have been no systematic reviews of the basic/preclinical research on resurgence. To characterize the procedural and analytic methods used in basic/preclinical research on resurgence, we performed a systematic review consistent with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). We identified 120 articles consisting of 200 experiments that presented novel empirical research, examined operant behavior, and included standard elements of a resurgence procedure. We reported prevalence and trends in over 60 categories, including participant characteristics (e.g., species, sample size, disability), designs (e.g., single subject, group), procedural characteristics (e.g., responses, reinforcer types, control conditions), criteria defining resurgence (e.g., single test, multiple tests, relative to control), and analytic strategies (e.g., inferential statistics, quantitative analysis, visual inspection). We make some recommendations for future basic, preclinical, and clinical research based on our findings of this expanding literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-022-00361-y.

Relapse during the treatment of pediatric feeding disorders

Resurgence and renewal are treatment-relapse phenomena in which previously extinguished behavior returns after the conditions for an alternative response worsen or the context changes, respectively. Recently, researchers have evaluated the prevalence of resurgence and renewal when treating destructive behavior with functional communication training. However, resurgence of inappropriate mealtime behavior has yet to be evaluated; perhaps because treatments involve qualitatively different resurgence opportunities (e.g., increased bite-presentation rate). We evaluated the prevalence of resurgence and renewal of inappropriate mealtime behavior across 22 and 25 applications of extinction-based treatments, respectively. Resurgence occurred in 41% (9/22) of applications, most often following presentation-rate increases. Renewal occurred in 52% (13/25) of applications, most often following feeder changes from therapist to caregiver. We discuss these findings in terms of their ability to inform relapse-mitigation strategies for resurgence and renewal of inappropriate mealtime behavior.

Resurgence during transitions from variable- to fixed-interval schedules

The effects of local periods of extinction on resurgence following transitions from variable-interval (VI) to fixed-interval (FI) schedules were studied using four pigeons exposed to a within-session resurgence procedure. Each session was divided into a Training (T) Alternative-Reinforcement (AR), and Resurgence Test (RT) phase. During the T phase, key pecking was reinforced under a VI 60-s schedule on one key. In the AR phase, responses reinforced in the T phase were extinguished, while responses to a different key were reinforced under a VI 90-s schedule. Next, responding to the same key that produced reinforcers in the AR phase was reinforced according to four different RT conditions: RT phase I (FI 90 s), RT phase II (FI 180 s), RT phase III (FI 45 s), or RT phase IV (extinction). The frequency of resurgence generally was an inverse function of the rate of reinforcement in the RT phase. Resurgence occurred less often when reinforcers were delivered under the FI 45-s schedule and more often under leaner schedules in the RT phase, peaking under extinction. The results show that resurgence may occur during local periods of extinction, with larger and more consistent effects occurring when the rate of reinforcement in the RT condition is leaner than it was during the preceding AR phase.

Recaída de Variabilidade Operante com a Combinação dos Procedimentos de Renovação, Restabelecimento e Ressurgência

Resumo O reaparecimento de variabilidade comportamental previamente extinta (i.e., recaída) foi investigado por meio dos modelos experimentais de renovação, restabelecimento e ressurgência. Na Fase de Treino (contexto A), ao serem expostos ao esquema múltiplo Lag 10 Acoplado, ratos apresentaram níveis similares de variabilidade nos dois componentes. Na Fase de Eliminação (contexto B), o esquema múltiplo Repetição Repetição promoveu a extinção da variabilidade. Na Fase de Teste (contexto A), com a suspensão da contingência de repetição e a liberação de reforços independentes, a variabilidade reapareceu no componente “Lag 10”, anteriormente correlacionado com reforçamento da variação, mas não no componente “Acoplado”. Esse resultado sugere que a variabilidade observada no teste de recaída corresponde à variabilidade operante, e não à variabilidade induzida pela extinção.