Assessing the role of alternative response rates and reinforcer rates in resistance to extinction of target responding when combining stimuli

Studies of behavioral momentum reveal that reinforcing an alternative response in the presence of a target response reduces the rate of target responding but increases its persistence, relative to training the target response on its own. Because of the parallels between these studies and differential‐reinforcement techniques to reduce problem behavior in clinical settings, alternative techniques to reduce problem behavior without enhancing its persistence are being explored. One potential solution is to train an alternative response in a separate stimulus context from problem behavior before combining the alternative stimulus with the target stimulus. The present study assessed how differences in reinforcement contingencies and rate for alternative responding influenced resistance to extinction of target responding when combining alternative and target stimuli in pigeons. Across three experiments, alternative stimuli signaling a response–reinforcer dependency and greater reinforcer rates more effectively decreased the persistence of target responding when combining alternative and target stimuli within the same extinction tests, but not when compared across separate extinction tests. Overall, these findings reveal that differences in competition between alternative and target responding produced by contingencies of alternative reinforcement could influence the effectiveness of treating problem behavior through combining stimulus contexts.     

Signaled alternative reinforcement and the persistence of operant behavior

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is a treatment designed to eliminate problem behavior by reinforcing an alternative behavior at a higher rate. Availability of alternative reinforcement may be signaled, as with Functional Communication Training, or unsignaled. Whether or not alternative reinforcement is signaled could influence both the rate and persistence of problem behavior. The present study investigated whether signaling the availability of alternative reinforcement affects the rate and persistence of a concurrently available target response with pigeons. Three components of a multiple concurrent schedule arranged equal reinforcement rates for target responding. Two of the components also arranged equal reinforcement rates for an alternative response. In one DRA component, a discrete stimulus signaled the availability of response‐contingent alternative reinforcement by changing the keylight color upon reinforcement availability. In the other DRA component, availability of alternative reinforcement was not signaled. Target responding was most persistent in the unsignaled DRA component when disrupted by satiation, free food presented between components, and extinction, relative to the signaled DRA and control components. These findings suggest the discrete stimulus functionally separated the availability of alternative reinforcement from the discriminative stimuli governing target responding. These findings provide a novel avenue to explore in translational research assessing whether signaling the availability of alternative reinforcement with DRA treatments reduces the persistence of problem behavior.     

Examining stimuli paired with alternative reinforcement to mitigate resurgence in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and pigeons

In two laboratory experiments, we examined whether stimuli paired with alternative reinforcers could mitigate resurgence of a previously reinforced target response with pigeons (Experiment 1) and children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (Experiment 2). In Phase 1, we arranged food reinforcement according to a variable-ratio schedule for engaging in a target response. In Phase 2, we arranged extinction for target responding and differentially reinforced alternative responding according to a fixed-ratio schedule, with every alternative-reinforcer delivery paired with a change in keylight color (Experiment 1) or automated verbal (praise) statement (Experiment 2). In Phase 3, we assessed resurgence during extinction of target and alternative responding in the presence versus absence of continued presentation of the paired stimulus. Despite variation across sessions, resurgence on average was lower when continuing to present the paired stimuli in all pigeons and children while maintenance of alternative responding did not differ between assessments. These findings indicate that stimuli paired with alternative reinforcement can modestly decrease resurgence, but further examination of their efficacy and a better understanding of the underlying processes are necessary before they can be recommended for clinical use in reducing resurgence of clinically relevant problem behavior.     

RESISTANCE TO EXTINCTION AND RELAPSE IN COMBINED STIMULUS CONTEXTS

Reinforcing an alternative response in the same context as a target response reduces the rate of occurrence but increases the persistence of that target response. Applied researchers who use such techniques to decrease the rate of a target problem behavior risk inadvertently increasing the persistence of the same problem behavior. Behavioral momentum theory asserts that the increased persistence is a function of the alternative reinforcement enhancing the Pavlovian relation between the target stimulus context and reinforcement. A method showing promise for reducing the persistence‐enhancing effects of alternative reinforcement is to train the alternative response in a separate stimulus context before combining with the target stimulus in extinction. The present study replicated previous findings using pigeons by showing that combining an “alternative” richer VI schedule (96 reinforcers/ hr) with a “target” leaner VI schedule (24 reinforcers/hr) reduced resistance to extinction of target responding compared with concurrent training of the alternative and target responses (totaling 120 reinforcers/hr). We also found less relapse with a reinstatement procedure following extinction with separate‐context training, supporting previous findings that training conditions similarly influence both resistance to extinction and relapse. Finally, combining the alternative stimulus context was less disruptive to target responding previously trained in the concurrent schedule, relative to combining with the target response trained alone. Overall, the present findings suggest the technique of combining stimulus contexts associated with alternative responses with those associated with target responses disrupts target responding. Furthermore, the effectiveness of this disruption is a function of training context of reinforcement for target responding, consistent with assertions of behavioral momentum theory.     

Stimulus–reinforcer relations established during training determine resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement

The baseline rate of a reinforced target response decreases with the availability of response‐independent sources of alternative reinforcement; however, resistance to disruption and relapse increases. Because many behavioral treatments for problem behavior include response‐dependent reinforcement of alternative behavior, the present study assessed whether response‐dependent alternative reinforcement also decreases baseline response rates but increases resistance to extinction and relapse. We reinforced target responding at equal rates across two components of a multiple schedule with pigeons. We compared resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement of (1) a target response trained concurrently with a reinforced alternative response in one component with (2) a target response trained either concurrently or in separate components from the alternative response across conditions. Target response rates trained alone in baseline were higher but resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement tests were greater after training concurrently with the alternative response. In another assessment, training target and alternative responding together, but separating them during extinction and reinstatement tests, produced equal resistance to extinction and relapse. Together, these findings are consistent with behavioral momentum theory—operant response–reinforcer relations determined baseline response rates but Pavlovian stimulus–reinforcer relations established during training determined resistance to extinction and relapse. These findings imply that reinforcing alternative behavior to treat problem behavior could initially reduce rates but increase persistence.     

Behavioral momentum theory fails to account for the effects of reinforcement rate on resurgence

The behavioral‐momentum model of resurgence predicts reinforcer rates within a resurgence preparation should have three effects on target behavior. First, higher reinforcer rates in baseline (Phase 1) produce more persistent target behavior during extinction plus alternative reinforcement. Second, higher rate alternative reinforcement during Phase 2 generates greater disruption of target responding during extinction. Finally, higher rates of either reinforcement source should produce greater responding when alternative reinforcement is suspended in Phase 3. Recent empirical reports have produced mixed results in terms of these predictions. Thus, the present experiment further examined reinforcer‐rate effects on persistence and resurgence. Rats pressed target levers for high‐rate or low‐rate variable‐interval food during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target‐lever pressing was extinguished, an alternative nose‐poke became available, and nose‐poking produced either high‐rate variable‐interval, low‐rate variable‐interval, or no (an extinction control) alternative reinforcement. Alternative reinforcement was suspended in Phase 3. For groups that received no alternative reinforcement, target‐lever pressing was less persistent following high‐rate than low‐rate Phase‐1 reinforcement. Target behavior was more persistent with low‐rate alternative reinforcement than with high‐rate alternative reinforcement or extinction alone. Finally, no differences in Phase‐3 responding were observed for groups that received either high‐rate or low‐rate alternative reinforcement, and resurgence occurred only following high‐rate alternative reinforcement. These findings are inconsistent with the momentum‐based model of resurgence. We conclude this model mischaracterizes the effects of reinforcer rates on persistence and resurgence of operant behavior.     

Enhancing the effects of extinction on attention-maintained behavior through noncontingent delivery of attention or stimuli identified via a competing stimulus assessment

Recent research has shown that the noncontingent delivery of competing stimuli can effectively reduce rates of destructive behavior maintained by social-positive reinforcement, even when the contingency for destructive behavior remains intact. It may be useful, therefore, to have a systematic means for predicting which reinforcers do and do not compete successfully with the reinforcer that is maintaining destructive behavior. In the present study, we conducted a brief competing stimulus assessment in which noncontingent access to a variety of tangible stimuli (one toy per trial) was superimposed on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule of attention for destructive behavior for individuals whose behavior was found to be reinforced by attention during a functional analysis. Tangible stimuli that resulted in the lowest rates of destructive behavior and highest percentages of engagement during the competing stimulus assessment were subsequently used in a noncontingent tangible items plus extinction treatment package and were compared to noncontingent attention plus extinction and extinction alone. Results indicated that both treatments resulted in greater reductions in the target behavior than did extinction alone and suggested that the competing stimulus assessment may be helpful in predicting stimuli that can enhance the effects of extinction when noncontingent attention is unavailable. DESCRIPTORS: Attention-maintained problem behavior, competing stimuli, extinction, functional analysis, noncontingent reinforcement     

Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli.

A discriminative stimulus is a stimulus condition which, (1) given the momentary effectiveness of some particular type of reinforcement (2) increases the frequency of a particular type of response (3) because that stimulus condition has been correlated with an increase in the frequency with which that type of response has been followed by that type of reinforcement. Operations such as deprivation have two different effects on behavior. One is to increase the effectiveness of some object or event as reinforcement, and the other is to evoke the behavior that has in the past been followed by that object or event. "Establishing operation" is suggested as a general term for operations having these two effects. A number of situations involve what is generally assumed to be a discriminative stimulus relation, but with the third defining characteristic of the discriminative stimulus absent. Here the stimulus change functions more like an establishing operation than a discriminative stimulus, and the new term, "establishing stimulus," is suggested. There are three other possible approaches to this terminological problem, but none are entirely satisfactory.     

On Stimulus Generalization and Stimulus Classes

Stimulus generalization has been defined as the spread of effect of reinforcement for responses emitted in the presence of one stimulus to different stimuli presented under extinction conditions. As a result of stimulus generalization, novel stimuli come to exert stimulus control over members of the response class. Studies in the applied behavior analysis literature, however, have reported experimental preparations that included prompting and reinforcement procedures during what were claimed to be stimulus generalization conditions. These studies violated the procedural requirement that stimulus generalization be tested under extinction conditions. Responses that come under the control of a class of stimuli may do so by direct training or by stimulus generalization. It is desirable for organisms to respond in the presence of members of an appropriately constructed stimulus class, but we should understand the mechanism of entry into the class by its members. If inaccurate claims of stimulus generalization are made when training procedures are used in the ostensible generalization conditions, the robustness of the original training procedures will be over estimated. By adhering to the operational requirements of behavioral definitions, we could better understand the power and limits of our educational and training procedures.     

Resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior implemented with and without extinction

In the clinic, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) often involves programming extinction for destructive behavior while reinforcing an alternative form of communication (e.g., a functional communication response); however, implementing extinction can be unsafe or impractical under some circumstances. Quantitative theories of resurgence (i.e., Behavioral Momentum Theory and Resurgence as Choice) predict differences in the efficacy of treatments that do and do not involve extinction of target responding when reinforcement conditions maintaining alternative responding worsen. We tested these predictions by examining resurgence following two DRA conditions in which we equated rates of reinforcement. In DRA without extinction, target and alternative behavior produced reinforcement. In DRA with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement, only alternative behavior produced reinforcement. We conducted this study in a reverse-translation sequence, first with participants who engaged in destructive behavior (Experiment 1) and then in a laboratory setting with rats (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, we observed proportionally lower levels of target responding during and following the DRA condition that arranged extinction for the target response. However, levels of resurgence were similar following both arrangements.     

Rate of response as a visual social stimulus

In Exp. 1, a high rate of responding (chain pulling) of a stimulus monkey was established as a visual positive discriminative stimulus for the operant behavior (bar pressing) of an observer monkey. The terminal performance of the observer under conditions in which a high rate of response of the stimulus monkey alternated in a variable temporal arrangement with a zero rate of response of the stimulus monkey (negative discriminative stimulus) was essentially the same as when nonbehavioral stimuli are correlated with the availability of reinforcement. By manipulating the schedule of reinforcement to change the rate of responding of the stimulus subject without changing its rate of reinforcement, Exp. 2 showed that the effective behavioral stimulus for the observer was the rate of chain pulling by the stimulus subject. A novel intermediate rate of responding by the stimulus monkey resulted in an intermediate rate (generalization) on the part of the observer during an extinction test. These experiments demonstrated that the rate of responding of one organism can function as a discriminative stimulus to control the rate of responding of another organism; and that the rate of responding is similar to other physical stimuli in terms of discrimination and generalization.     

Alternative response training, differential reinforcement of other behavior, and extinction in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)

In Experiment I, (a) extinction, (b) extinction plus reinforcement of a discrete alternative response, and (c) differential reinforcement of other behavior were each correlated with a different stimulus in a three-component multiple schedule. The alternative-response procedure more rapidly and completely suppressed behavior than did differential reinforcement of other behavior. Differential reinforcement of other behavior was slightly more effective than extinction alone. In Experiment II, reinforcement of specific alternative behavior during extinction and differential reinforcement of other behavior were used in two components, while one component continued to provide reinforcement for the original response. Once again, the alternative-response procedure was most effective in reducing responding as long as it remained in effect. However, the responding partially recovered when reinforcement for competing behavior was discontinued. In general, responding was less readily reduced by differential reinforcement of other behavior than by the specific alternative-response procedure.     

Control of responding during stimuli that precede transitions in reinforcement frequency

Pigeons' responses were reinforced on a variant of a mixed variable-interval extinction schedule of reinforcement in which the transition to the higher reinforcement rate was signaled by a trace stimulus projected on the response key prior to the onset of the component correlated with food delivery. In the first of two experiments, the duration of the trace stimulus preceding the component correlated with food delivery was varied from 1.5 to 50.0 s and in the second experiment, the reinforcement frequency in the same component was varied from 10 to 60 reinforcers per hour. Pigeons pecked at the trace stimulus preceding the onset of the component correlated with food delivery even though responding was not reinforced in its presence and only one of the changes in reinforcement rate (i.e., from extinction to reinforcement) was signaled. The rate of pecking during the trace stimulus was a function of its duration but not of the reinforcement frequency in the following component. Higher rates generally occurred at the shorter trace-stimulus durations. Component responding following the offset of the trace stimulus was under discriminative control of the trace stimulus whether or not responding occurred in the presence of the trace stimulus.     

The effects of noncontingent delivery of high- and low-preference stimuli on attention-maintained destructive behavior

An adolescent with severe mental retardation and cerebral palsy who displayed attention-maintained destructive behavior was exposed to noncontingent reinforcer delivery (NCR) with either a high-preference or a low-preference stimulus while reinforcement for destructive behavior with attention remained in effect (i.e., NCR without extinction). NCR without extinction was effective only when the high-preference stimulus was available, suggesting that systematic assessment of stimulus quality may enhance the effectiveness of NCR with alternative stimuli.     

Investigations of operant ABA renewal during differential reinforcement

Operant renewal is a form of relapse in which a previously extinguished response recurs due to a change in context. We designed two experiments to examine the impact of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior on ABA renewal in a translational model of relapse with 12 children. We compared levels of renewal in two 3-phase arrangements. In one arrangement, we reinforced target responding in Context A, extinguished responding in Context B, and returned to Context A while continuing to implement extinction. In a second arrangement, an alternative response produced reinforcement in Context B and during the return to Context A. Results across the 2 experiments indicated 3 general findings. First, extinction plus differential reinforcement disrupted target behavior more consistently in Context B relative to extinction alone. Second, renewal tended to be greater and more persistent during extinction alone relative to extinction plus differential reinforcement. Third, the renewal effect appeared to depend on whether the alternative response had a history of extinction in Context A. We discuss methodological implications for the treatment of severe destructive behavior.     

Mitigating resurgence of destructive behavior using the discriminative stimuli of a multiple schedule

Results of several recent translational studies have suggested that correlating contextual or discriminative stimuli with the delivery and withholding of reinforcement for the functional communication response (FCR) may mitigate resurgence of destructive behavior, but few, if any, have isolated the effects of those stimuli. In the present study, we first trained the FCR, brought it under stimulus control of a multiple schedule, and thinned its reinforcement schedule in one stimulus context. Next, we conducted resurgence evaluations (i.e., baseline, functional communication training [FCT], extinction challenge) in two novel contexts to test the effects of the discriminative stimuli on resurgence. We programmed one context to include the (a) S^D during the FCT phase to signal the availability of reinforcement for the FCR and (b) S^Δ during a subsequent extinction challenge to signal the unavailability of reinforcement for the FCR. The other context did not include the S^D during the FCT phase, nor the S^Δ during the extinction challenge. We expected to see greater persistence of the FCR in the context that included the S^D during FCT and less persistence of the FCR and less resurgence of destructive behavior in the context that included the S^Δ during the extinction challenge. Obtained results confirmed this latter prediction, but we observed no reliable difference when the S^D was present or absent during the FCT phase. Our results have relevance for practitioners in that they provide further empirical support for the use of discriminative stimuli when treating destructive behavior.     

Analysis of discriminative control by social behavioral stimuli

Visual discriminative control of the behavior of one rat by the behavior of another was studied in a two-compartment chamber. Each rat's compartment had a food cup and two response keys arranged vertically next to the clear partition that separated the two rats. Illumination of the leader's key lights signaled a “search” period when a response by the leader on the unsignaled and randomly selected correct key for that trial illuminated the follower's keys. Then, a response by the follower on the corresponding key was reinforced, or a response on the incorrect key terminated the trial without reinforcement. Accuracy of following the leader increased to 85% within 15 sessions. Blocking the view of the leader reduced accuracy but not to chance levels. Apparent control by visual behavioral stimuli was also affected by auditory stimuli and a correction procedure. When white noise eliminated auditory cues, social learning was not acquired as fast nor as completely. A reductionistic position holds that behavioral stimuli are the same as nonsocial stimuli; however, that does not mean that they do not require any separate treatment. Behavioral stimuli are usually more variable than nonsocial stimuli, and further study is required to disentangle behavioral and nonsocial contributions to the stimulus control of social interactions.     

STIMULUS CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN DIRECTIVES: EFFECTS ON ACCURACY OF TASK COMPLETION

Three experiments were conducted in an outpatient setting with young children who had been referred for treatment of noncompliant behavior and who had coexisting receptive language or receptive vocabulary difficulties. Experiment 1 studied differential responding of the participants to a brief hierarchical directive analysis (least‐to‐most complex stimulus prompts) to identify directives that functioned as discriminative stimuli for accurate responding. Experiment 1 identified distinct patterns of accurate responding relative to manipulation of directive stimulus characteristics. Experiment 2 demonstrated that directives identified as effective or ineffective in obtaining stimulus control of accurate responding during Experiment 1 continued to control accurate responding across play activities and academic tasks. Experiment 3 probed effects of the interaction between the type of directive (effective vs. ineffective) and the reinforcement contingency (differential reinforcement for attempts vs. differential reinforcement for accurate responses) on accurate task completion and disruptive behavior. Results suggested that behavioral escalation from inaccurate responding to disruptive behavior occurred only when ineffective directives were combined with differential reinforcement for accurate task completion. The overall results are discussed in terms of developing a methodology for identifying stimulus characteristics of directives that affect accurate responding.     

ESTABLISHING DISCRIMINATIVE CONTROL OF RESPONDING USING FUNCTIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE REINFORCERS DURING FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION TRAINING

Functional communication training (FCT) is a popular treatment for problem behaviors, but its effectiveness may be compromised when the client emits the target communication response and reinforcement is either delayed or denied. In the current investigation, we trained 2 individuals to emit different communication responses to request (a) the reinforcer for destructive behavior in a given situation (e.g., contingent attention in the attention condition of a functional analysis) and (b) an alternative reinforcer (e.g., toys in the attention condition of a functional analysis). Next, we taught the participants to request each reinforcer in the presence of a different discriminative stimulus (S^D). Then, we evaluated the effects of differential reinforcement of communication (DRC) using the functional and alternative reinforcers and correlated S^Ds, with and without extinction of destructive behavior. During all applications, DRC (in combination with S^Ds that signaled available reinforcers) rapidly reduced destructive behavior to low levels regardless of whether the functional reinforcer or an alternative reinforcer was available or whether reinforcement for destructive behavior was discontinued (i.e., extinction).     

Brief assessment and treatment of pica using differential reinforcement,response interruption and redirection,and competing stimuli

Pica is a life threating form of challenging behavior displayed by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In most cases, pica is maintained by automatic reinforcement. Common interventions for pica use some combination of response blocking, response interruption and redirection (RIRD), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), and noncontingent reinforcement with competing stimuli. However, there is need for additional research regarding DRA procedures that emphasize skills acquisition by teaching alternative behaviors that modify the established behavioral chain of pica responses that occur in the presence of non-edible stimuli. There is also a need to examine the generality of recent advances in competing stimulus assessment (CSA) methodologies—namely, the augmented-CSA (A-CSA)—to pica. Thus, the purpose of the present investigation was to systematically replicate and extend previous research for the assessment and treatment of pica in an individual with IDD. First, we conducted a functional analysis to identify environmental variables associated with pica. Next, taught Patrick a differential response (i.e., discard pica items in trash receptacle) to earn reinforcers in conjunction with a RIRD procedure. Finally, we conducted an A-CSA for pica. Overall, low rates of pica were maintained over time with a combination of these procedures, and treatment was generalized across settings and people.