ArticleJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior2020
Relapse of operant behavior after response elimination with an extinction or an omission contingency.
Article in Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- No More Evasion: Redefining Conflict Behaviour in Human-Horse Interactions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- A comparison of renewal, spontaneous recovery, and reacquisition after punishment and extinction.Learning & behavior · 2023Article
- Partial reinforcement extinction and omission effects in the elimination and recovery of discriminated operant behavior.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2023Article
- Learning to stop responding.Behavioural processes · 2023Review
- Relapse after incentivized choice treatment in humans: A laboratory model for studying behavior change.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2022Article
- BEHAVIORAL AND NEUROBIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS OF PAVLOVIAN AND INSTRUMENTAL EXTINCTION LEARNING.Physiological reviews · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The present study compared relapse after responding was eliminated by extinction or omission training in rats. In Experiment 1, lever pressing was reinforced with food pellets in Context A and then eliminated with either extinction or omission training in Context B. The response was then tested in Contexts A and B in either the presence or absence of free food pellets delivered on a random time schedule. All rats showed higher responding when tested in Context A than Context B, and there was little evidence that omission training attenuated this ABA renewal effect. Noncontingent pellets increased responding after extinction but not after omission. However, when responding on the last day of response elimination was compared to responding during the test in the response-elimination context, there was some evidence that omission-trained rats showed a small increase in responding even when tested with free pellets. Results of Experiment 2 suggest this increase was not due to differences in the temporal distribution of pellets during elimination and the test, and that the result might be due to mere removal of the omission contingency, but any such effect is small and difficult to detect statistically. The results provide new information about factors generating relapse after omission training.
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.