Response-elimination Procedures Research Articles

Occasional reinforced responses during extinction can slow the rate of reacquisition of an operant response

Three experiments with rats examined reacquisition of an operant response after either extinction or a response-elimination procedure that included occasional reinforced responses during extinction. In each experiment, reacquisition was slower when response elimination had included occasional reinforced responses, although the effect was especially evident when responding was examined immediately following each response-reinforcer pairing during reacquisition (Experiments 2 and 3). An extinction procedure with added noncontingent reinforcers also slowed reacquisition (Experiment 3). The results are consistent with research in classical conditioning (Bouton, M. E., Woods, A. M., & Pineño, O. (2004). Occasional reinforced trials during extinction can slow the rate of rapid reacquisition. Learning & Motivation, 35, 371–390) and suggest that rapid reacquisition after extinction is analogous to a renewal effect that occurs when reinforced responses signal a return to the conditioning context. Clinical implications are also discussed.

Determinants of Response Recovery in Extinction Following Response Elimination

Elimination of autoshaped responding by random or negatively-contingent response-reductive procedures may leave a previously acquired association intact; however, two previous studies suggest that response elimination by backward conditioning may have more permanent effects. In Experiments 1 and 3, the autoshaped responding of pigeons was eliminated by a backward or negative contingency. Although speed of recovery during a subsequent extinction phase was greater following the backward contingency in Experiment 3, level of recovery did not differ as a function of response elimination procedure in either experiment. A possible basis for the discrepancy between the present and previous findings is the contingency arranged between the conditioned and unconditioned stimuli (CS and US, respectively) during forward conditioning. In Experiments 1 and 2, probability of US presentation following the CS (p(US|CS) = 0.4 or 1.0) was varied within (Experiment 1) or between (Experiment 2) groups of birds. In both cases, level of recovery was higher following training under (p(US|CS) = 0.4). The results are consistent with a memory retrieval theory in which unreinforced trials function as a retrieval cue for not responding.

Attenuation and reacquisition of foraging behavior in a patchy environment

The present experiment examined the attenuation and reacquisition of foraging behavior of pigeons on a restricted diet. Using the procedure of Roberts (1988), thirty-two feeders were arranged in four circular patches of eight feeders each. The feeders were baited so that each patch contained a different density of food. Pigeons learned to forage among the patches. During this initial acquisition phase, visits to the patches by the pigeons differed as a function of the food density of the patches. After this initial foraging training phase, each pigeon received one of two response elimination procedures. For half of the subjects, food was not present during the response elimination phase. For the remaining subjects, food was placed exclusively outside the patches during this phase. Foraging behavior decreased quickly and somewhat similarly for both conditions. During a final phase in which the retraining of the original foraging behavior occurred, the group given food outside the patches during response elimination provided evidence of superior foraging with respect to sensitivity to the different patch food densities. The results are discussed with regard to previously published response elimination effects.

The Relative Effects of Three Response-Elimination Procedures in Severely/Profoundly and Trainable Retarded Individuals

The present experiment was designed to compare the response-eliminating efficiency of omission training, extinction training, and graduated omission training following VR reinforcement training in severely/profoundly retarded and trainable retarded individuals. In both populations, the results indicate that the graduated omission training procedure reduced responding significantly faster and more thoroughly than did either omission training or extinction training, and that the latter two procedures do not differ in effectiveness from one another.

The retarding effect of the TRC response-elimination procedure upon the subsequent reacquisition of autoshaping: Comparison of between- and within-subjects assessment procedures and the evaluation of the role of background contextual stimuli

In Experiment 1, two groups of pigeons were autoshaped to a green keylight CS and then administered either CS only or truly random control (TRC) response-elimination procedures with the green keylight CS. The groups ceased responding at comparable rates. In a subsequent reacquisition test with a vertical-line key stimulus, the group administered CS only during response elimination reacquired the keypecking CR more rapidly. The two groups were then administered the alternative response-elimination treatment with the vertical-line CS. Again, the groups ceased responding at comparable rates. In a subsequent reacquisition test with a red keylight CS, the group administered CS only during the immediately preceding response-elimination phase reacquired the keypecking CR more rapidly. In Experiment 2, following initial acquisition, the CS-only and TRC response-elimination treatments were administered under the context-change and no-context change conditions. The TRC/context-change and CS-only/context-change groups ceased responding more rapidly than either the TRC/ no-context-change or CS-only/no-context-change groups. In subsequent reacquisition to a novel CS, the CS-only/no-context-change group reacquired the fastest, the TRC/no-context-change group reacquired the slowest, and the CS-only/context-change and TRC/context-change groups reacquired at similar intermediate rates. Implications of these results for the context-blocking hypothesis are discussed.

Differential reinforcement of other behavior: A preferred response elimination procedure

Ethical and legal concerns which have been raised regarding many types of response elimination techniques are discussed, and the increased use of a schedule employing positive reinforcement to eliminate behavior is proposed. The differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) schedule is compared with other response elimination techniques. It is concluded that DRO schedules compare favorably with other techniques in speed and completeness of response elimination. In addition, DRO schedules may be superior to other techniques in durability and generalization of response reduction and in the type of side effects produced. Increased examination and use of DRO schedules is urged.

Effects of response elimination procedures upon the subsequent reacquisition of autoshaping

In Experiment 1, three groups of pigeons were autoshaped and then administered one of three different response-elimination procedures. Group TRC (truly random control) and Group Backward (backward conditioning) ceased responding more rapidly than Group CS-only. In a subsequent reacquisition test with a novel CS, Groups TRC and Backward were retarded relative to Group CS-only. In Experiment 2, the CS-only and TRC response-elimination treatments were not differentially effective in extinguishing the response. The treatments were followed either by five sessions of unpredictable US presentations (US-only) or by five sessions of remaining in their home cages (hold) prior to the reacquisition test. The TRC treatment retarded reacquisition relative to the CS-only treatment; the US-only posttreatment manipulation failed to reliably retard reacquisition relative to Hold, although retarding effects of US-only are discernible in a block-by-block analysis. Applications and limitations of a context-blocking account of these results are discussed.

REINFORCING THE ABSENCE OF FIXED‐RATIO PERFORMANCE1

Pigeons received food for key pecking according to a fixed-ratio schedule, while, at the same time, food also was available for not pecking for a specified time. With a fixed ratio of 60, responding was not affected by not-pecking times of 80 or 40 seconds, and was eliminated completely at 10 seconds. With ratios of 180, pecking stopped with not-pecking times of 80 seconds or less; with ratios of 300, it stopped at 120 seconds or less. Not-responding schedules produced steady-state performance immediately following contact with the schedule. With return to the fixed-ratio schedule alone, response rate sometimes was elevated temporarily. When response-independent food presentations replaced the not-pecking schedule, response rate often was enhanced, and the ratio pattern was lost. Only the highest densities of food delivery eliminated responding, even with a fixed ratio of 300. In general, the effects corresponded to those of punishment, except that contrast had appeared both during and after punishment, and now appeared only after the response elimination procedure was suspended.

A Comparison of Three Response-Elimination Procedures Following Vr Training with Institutionalized, Moderately Retarded Individuals

The present experiment attempted to assess the relative response-eliminating efficacy of extinction training, omission training, and graduated omission training following VR training with 30 institutionalized, moderately retarded males. The results indicated that graduated omission training led to significantly greater and more rapid response deceleration than either extinction training or omission training. In addition, extinction training was significantly more efficient in eliminating responding than omission training. The latter finding was not in accord with a majority of previous investigations. It was suggested that the presentation of reinforcement during omission training served as a discriminative stimulus for response resumption.

A direct comparison of four methods for eliminating a response

Thirty-two rats pressed one lever (lever A) on a VI 30-sec schedule of food reinforcement and were then shifted to one of four procedures for eliminating the lever A response: extinction, differential reinforcement of other behavior, reinforcement of a different response (pole pushing), and reinforcement of a similar response (pressing lever B). Effectiveness of a response-elimination procedure was measured by (1) how quickly lever A response rate fell to a low level when the procedure was in effect, (2) how much lever A responding recovered when the procedure was discontinued, and (3) how resistant lever A responding was to reinstatement when the VI reinforcement schedule was reimposed. No one method was superior by all three measures. Extinction produced the most variable behavior, while differential reinforcement of other behavior produced the least. Reinforcing alternative behavior produced the greatest recovery in the original lever A response when the response-elimination procedure was discontinued.

Response Elimination in Elementary and Special Education School Children

Elementary and special education students received training on a variable-ratio reinforcement schedule and were then switched to one of three response-elimination procedures: extinction training, omission training, or gradual omission training. Omission training eliminated responding more effectively than did extinction training; however, the gradual omission training procedure reduced responding more rapidly and efficiently than did either omission training or extinction training. These results occurred in both subject populations.

A within-subject comparison of three response-elimination procedures in pigeons

The present study compared the response-eliminating properties of omission training, extinction training, and a variable-time schedule within pigeons following training on a variable-interval schedule. The results indicated that both omission training and extinction training eliminated responding significantly more efficiently than did the variable-time schedule, although they did not differ significantly from each other in their response-eliminating effects. In addition, response rates during the variable-time schedule tended to increase above baseline (i.e., positive behavioral contrast) in all subjects by the end of training. Possible explanations for these effects were discussed.

Comparison of six response-elimination techniques following VR reinforcement training in humans

The present study employed humans in an examination of the relative response-eliminating effects of the following six procedures: Extinction training, omission training, response cost, omission training plus response cost, extinction training plus response cost, and omission training with a gradual introduction. Results indicated that all procedures eliminated responding significantly more effectively than did extinction training. In addition, omission training plus response cost, extinction training plus response cost, and omission training with a gradual introduction reduced responding significantly more effectively than did either omission training or response cost, which did not differ significantly from each other. Finally, omission training plus response cost and extinction training plus response cost decreased responding significantly more efficiently than did omission training with a gradual introduction, although they were not significantly different from each other. Much research attention has concentrated on assessing the relative response-eliminating effects of omission training, in which S is reinforced for omitting a previously reinforced response, and extinction training. In general, these studies (cf. Miller & LeBlanc , 1972; Topping & Larmi, 1973; Topping, Pickering, & Jackson, 1971, 1972; Uhl & Garcia, 1969; Uhl & Sherman, 1971; Zeiler , 1971) have employed infrahuman Ss and have found that omission training is the more efficient technique, especially with regard to the durability of the response elimination. Because of the paucity of data on the elimination of responding in humans, Johnson, McGlynn, and Topping (I973) recently employed college students in a comparison of four response elimination procedures. Their results indicated that response cost (punishment), omission training plus response cost, and omission training reduced responding significantly faster than did extinction training. Although the effects of response cost and omission training plus response cost did not differ significantly from each other, both procedures eliminated responding significantly more rapidly than did omission training. The present experiment was designed to (a) replicate and extend portions of the Johnson et al (I 97 3) study, as well as provide additional response elimination data on humans; (b) provide a more sensitive comparison of response cost and omission training plus response cost in

Comparison of three response-elimination procedures following FI and VI reinforcement training in humans

In the present experiment, college students were trained to press a key according to a FI or VI reinforcement schedule and were then shifted to one of three response-elimination procedures: Fixed omission training, variable omission training, or extinction training. Results indicated that both omission training procedures eliminated the keypress response significantly more efficiently than did extinction training; however, the effects of the two omission training techniques did not differ significantly from each other. In addition, the effect of the initial reinforcement training schedule was not significant, nor were there any significant interactions.

The Relative Efficiency of Four Response-Elimination Techniques Following Variable-Ratio Reinforcement Training

In the present experiment humans received training on a variable-ratio reinforcement schedule and were then shifted to one of 4 response-elimination procedures: extinction training, omission training, response cost, or omission training plus response cost. Results indicated that response cost, omission training plus response cost, and omission training eliminated responding significantly faster than did extinction training. In addition, response cost and omission training plus response cost reduced responding signi-ficandy more rapidly than did omission training, although the effects of the former 2 procedures were not significantly different.