Search

Serial reversal-learning procedures are simple preparations that allow for a better understanding of how animals learn about environmental changes, including flexibly shifting responding to adapt to changing reinforcement contingencies. The present study examined serial reversal learning with humans by arranging both midsession and variable contingency reversals across two experiments. We also examined the effects of extinction by adding nonreinforced trials at the end of later sessions and provided the first evaluation of effects of win-stay/lose-shift versus counting strategies on accuracy and response latency of humans' reversal-learning performance. In each experiment, responding tracked contingency reversals, primarily with participants using either win-stay/lose-shift or counting strategies. Introducing variable reversal points in the second experiment resulted in near-exclusive win-stay/lose-shift responding among participants and eliminated counting of trials. Each experiment also revealed an immediate shift from S2 to S1 after experiencing extinction during the initial test trial, indicating resurgence of the initial response through a win-stay/lose-shift response pattern. Therefore, the present study replicates and extends prior findings of a win-stay/lose shift response pattern in situations of greater uncertainty. These findings suggest that differences in environmental certainty induce qualitatively different decision-making strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the success of exposure-based psychotherapies in anxiety treatment, relapse remains problematic. Resurgence, the return of previously eliminated behavior following the elimination of an alternative source of reinforcement, is a promising model of operant relapse. Nonhuman resurgence research has shown that higher rates of alternative reinforcement result in faster, more comprehensive suppression of target behavior, but also in greater resurgence when alternative reinforcement is eliminated. This study investigated rich and lean rates of alternative reinforcement on response suppression and resurgence in typically developing humans. In Phase 1, three groups (Rich, n = 18; Lean, n = 18; Control, n = 10) acquired the target response. In Phase 2, target responding was extinguished and alternative reinforcement delivered on RI 1 s, RI 3 s, and extinction schedules, respectively. Resurgence was assessed during Phase 3 under extinction conditions for all groups. Target responding was suppressed most thoroughly in Rich and partially in Lean. Target responding resurged in the Rich and Lean groups, but not in the Control group. Between groups, resurgence was more pronounced in the Rich group than the Lean and Control groups. Clinical implications of these findings, including care on the part of clinicians when identifying alternative sources of reinforcement, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recurrence of negatively reinforced responding of humans was studied in three experiments. In each experiment during Baseline, key-pressing produced 3-s timeouts from a requirement to exert finger pressure on a force cell according to variable- or fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, resurgence was studied by arranging a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule in the second phase, and extinction in the Test phase. In Experiment 2, ABA renewal was studied by extinguishing responding in the second phase in a different context and, in the Test phase, by presenting the Baseline-phase context when extinction still was in effect. In Experiment 3, reinstatement was studied by arranging extinction in the second phase, followed by the delivery of response-independent timeouts in the Test phase. Resurgence and renewal occurred consistently for each participant in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. In Experiment 3, reinstatement was observed less consistently in four participants. The results of these experiments replicate and extend to negatively reinforced responding previous findings of the resurgence and renewal of positively reinforced responding obtained mainly with nonhuman animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resurgence occurs when a worsening of conditions for an alternative response (e.g., extinction) increases a previously reinforced and subsequently extinguished target response. In contrast, renewal is an increase in a response previously eliminated by extinction following a contextual change. Moreover, arranging contextual changes during resurgence tests has enhanced relapse compared with the absence of contextual changes. Several laboratory studies evaluating resurgence in humans have included interruptions of operant tasks by presenting instructions or "blackouts" immediately prior to phase changes in which reinforcement contingencies change. Such interruptions could enhance relapse during testing similarly to changes in contextual stimuli. We tested this possibility in the present study with human participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk by interrupting the task across groups with 1-s blackouts every 12 s, 60 s, between phases, or by arranging no blackouts in a control group. We found that blackouts prior to phase changes increased resurgence effects relative to no blackouts, suggesting that blackouts between phases are a type of contextual manipulation serving to increase the salience of contingency changes. • Evaluated whether blackouts serve as contextual stimuli to enhance resurgence. • Brief blackouts between phase changes increased resurgence compared to no blackouts. • Between-phase blackouts could increase salience of contingency changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. • We evaluated effects of context changes on resurgence of a button press with humans. • ABA and ABC context changes enhanced resurgence relative to ABB context changes. • Similar levels of resurgence occurred with AAA, ABB, and AAC context changes. • Similar levels of resurgence occurred with ABA, ABC, and AAC context changes. • Context changes and extinction produced greater-than-additive response increases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]