ArticleJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior2026
Alternative-reinforcer magnitude effects on resurgence across successive relapse tests in mice.
Article in Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Alternative-reinforcer magnitude effects on resurgence across successive relapse tests in mice.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alternative-reinforcement-based treatments are common strategies for reducing maladaptive behavior in humans. When conditions of alternative reinforcement are made worse in some way, however, behavior that was targeted for elimination may resurge. Previous research using rat subjects has demonstrated that high-magnitude (relative to low-magnitude) alternative reinforcement produces faster elimination of target behavior but more resurgence once removed. The purpose of the present experiment was to assess cross-species generality of these effects to mice. During Phase 1, lever pressing produced single food pellet reinforcers. Next, during Phase 2, lever pressing was extinguished and groups of mice experienced either small-magnitude (one pellet), large-magnitude (three pellet), or no alternative reinforcement for nose poking. All food was suspended in Phase 3 to assess resurgence. As an additional goal of this study, changes in resurgence across successive determinations were assessed by cycling between periods during which alternative reinforcement was present or absent. Large-magnitude alternative reinforcers produced faster suppression of target behavior but more resurgence when removed than did small-magnitude alternative reinforcers. Moreover, this effect endured across repeated resurgence tests.
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.