Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27379715›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition2016

Learning to inhibit the response during instrumental (operant) extinction.

Mark E Bouton, Sydney Trask, Rodrigo Carranza-Jasso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Learning to stop responding.Behavioural processes · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Reinforcer predictability and stimulus salience promote discriminated habit learning.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2021
    Article
  15. Correction of response error versus stimulus error in the extinction of discriminated operant learning.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2020
    Article
  16. Context and renewal of habits and goal-directed actions after extinction.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Resurgence in humans: Reducing relapse by increasing generalization between treatment and testing.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark E BoutonDepartment of Psychological Science, University of Vermont.
Sydney TraskDepartment of Psychological Science, University of Vermont.
Rodrigo Carranza-JassoDepartment of Psychological Science, University of Vermont.

Funding

Extinction and Recovery in Associative LearningR01DA033123 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI BOUTON, MARK E · 2012 to 2021
$3.6M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA033123
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Five experiments tested implications of the idea that instrumental (operant) extinction involves learning to inhibit the learned response. All experiments used a discriminated operant procedure in which rats were reinforced for lever pressing or chain pulling in the presence of a discriminative stimulus (S), but not in its absence. In Experiment 1, extinction of the response (R) in the presence of S weakened responding in S, but equivalent nonreinforced exposure to S (without the opportunity to make R) did not. Experiment 2 replicated that result and found that extinction of R had no effect on a different R that had also been reinforced in the stimulus. In Experiments 3 and 4, rats first learned to perform several different stimulus and response combinations (S1R1, S2R1, S3R2, and S4R2). Extinction of a response in one stimulus (i.e., S1R1) transferred and weakened the same response, but not a different response, when it was tested in another stimulus (i.e., S2R1 but not S3R2). In Experiment 5, extinction still transferred between S1 and S2 when the stimuli set the occasion for R's association with different types of food pellets. The results confirm the importance of response inhibition in instrumental extinction: Nonreinforcement of the response in S causes the most effective suppression of responding, and response suppression is specific to the response but transfers and influences performance of the same response when it is occasioned by other stimuli. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

Conditioning, OperantLearningAnimalsExtinction, PsychologicalRatsReinforcement, Psychology

Identifiers

PMID27379715
PMCPMC4943680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.