» Articles » PMID: 28188809

Preventing Relapse After Incentivized Choice Treatment: A Laboratory Model

Overview
Journal Behav Processes
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2017 Feb 12
PMID 28188809
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Two experiments with rats examined relapse of an operant behavior that occurred after the behavior was suppressed by reinforcing (incentivizing) an alternative behavior. In the first phase, a target response (R1) was reinforced. In a treatment phase, R1 was still reinforced, but a new response (R2) was introduced and associated with a larger reinforcer. As in human contingency management treatments, incentivizing R2 this way was effective at suppressing R1. However, when R2's reinforcement was discontinued, there was a robust and immediate relapse to R1. Experiment 1 found that the strength of R1 during relapse testing was not different from that seen in a no treatment control. Experiment 2 found that relapse could nevertheless be reduced by presenting reinforcers not contingent on responding during the test. Either the reinforcer for R1 or the reinforcer for R2 (which were qualitatively different types of food pellets) were effective. The experiments introduce a laboratory method for studying relapse and how to prevent it after contingency management treatments, and suggest at least one treatment that discourages relapse. The incentivized choice paradigm differs from other models of relapse of operant behavior (e.g., resurgence, renewal, reinstatement) in that it does not focus on the return of behaviors that are inhibited by extinction.

Citing Articles

Abstinence as Choice: Exploring Voluntary Abstinence from Alcohol Self-Administration Using the Resurgence-as-Choice Framework.

Craig A, Smith S, Nall R, Sullivan W, Roane H Perspect Behav Sci. 2024; 47(2):335-363.

PMID: 39099746 PMC: 11294306. DOI: 10.1007/s40614-024-00405-5.


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

Podlesnik C, Ritchey C, Waits J, Gilroy S Perspect Behav Sci. 2023; 46(1):137-184.

PMID: 37006602 PMC: 10050505. DOI: 10.1007/s40614-022-00361-y.


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

Thrailkill E, Alcala J Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021; 30(2):220-234.

PMID: 33507769 PMC: 8363208. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000443.


Cues Associated with Alternative Reinforcement During Extinction Can Attenuate Resurgence of an Extinguished Instrumental Response.

Trask S Learn Behav. 2018; 47(1):66-79.

PMID: 30054852 PMC: 6348139. DOI: 10.3758/s13420-018-0339-9.

References
1.
Silverman K, Svikis D, Robles E, Stitzer M, Bigelow G . A reinforcement-based therapeutic workplace for the treatment of drug abuse: six-month abstinence outcomes. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2001; 9(1):14-23. DOI: 10.1037/1064-1297.9.1.14. View

2.
Crombag H, Shaham Y . Renewal of drug seeking by contextual cues after prolonged extinction in rats. Behav Neurosci. 2002; 116(1):169-73. DOI: 10.1037//0735-7044.116.1.169. View

3.
Lieving G, Lattal K . Recency, repeatability, and reinforcer retrenchment: an experimental analysis of resurgence. J Exp Anal Behav. 2003; 80(2):217-33. PMC: 1284955. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-217. View

4.
Bouton M . Context and behavioral processes in extinction. Learn Mem. 2004; 11(5):485-94. DOI: 10.1101/lm.78804. View

5.
Lussier J, Heil S, Mongeon J, Badger G, Higgins S . A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2006; 101(2):192-203. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01311.x. View