ReviewBehavioural processes2017
Preventing relapse after incentivized choice treatment: A laboratory model.
Review in Behavioural processes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discriminative Properties of Reinforcers Modulate Resurgence: Evidence from a Systematic Review.Perspectives on behavior science · 2025Review
- Abstinence as Choice: Exploring Voluntary Abstinence from Alcohol Self-Administration Using the Resurgence-as-Choice Framework.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Article
- A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Procedures and Analyses Used in Basic and Preclinical Studies of Resurgence, 1970-2020.Perspectives on behavior science · 2023Review
- Relapse after incentivized choice treatment in humans: A laboratory model for studying behavior change.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2022Article
- Cues Associated with Alternative Reinforcement During Extinction Can Attenuate Resurgence of an Extinguished Instrumental Response.Learning & behavior · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.