An evaluation of response cost in the treatment of inappropriate vocalizations maintained by automatic reinforcement.

The authors tested noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) alone and NCR plus response cost for loud, repetitive vocalizations.

The sounds seemed to be maintained by automatic reinforcement—no social payoff.

They used a single-case design, but the abstract omits participant details and results.

The abstract never says whether adding response cost helped.

We only know the combination was studied; no numbers are given.

Mueller et al. (2000) showed response cost slashed destructive escape behavior by 87%.

That study gives hope the same punisher could boost NCR, yet the target paper withholds data.

Saini et al. (2017) warn that NCR without extinction can cause resurgence later.

Their data hint you may need extinction, not just cost, for lasting change.

Migan-Gandonou Horr et al. (2021) used NCR plus extinction and achieved a 98.5% drop in perseverative speech that lasted 28 months.

They did it without response cost, suggesting extinction may be the key add-on.

You now have three choices when NCR alone is weak: add response cost, add extinction, or both.

The early cost paper (M et al., 2000) says cost can work, but the newer extinction data (Saini et al., 2017; Migan-Gandonou Horr et al., 2021) say extinction may give longer-lasting suppression.

Until head-to-head trials appear, track resurgence in your data and be ready to layer in extinction if problem sounds return.