SENSORY EXTINCTION AND SENSORY REINFORCEMENT PRINCIPLES FOR PROGRAMMING MULTIPLE ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR CHANGE

The role of sensory reinforcement was examined in programming multiple treatment gains in self-stimulation and spontaneous play for developmentally disabled children. Two phases were planned. First, we attempted to identify reinforcers maintaining self-stimulation. Sensory Extinction procedures were implemented in which auditory, proprioceptive, or visual sensory consequences of self-stimulatory behavior were systematically removed and reintroduced in a reversal design. When self-stimulation was decreased or eliminated as a result of removing one of these sensory consequences, the functional sensory consequence was designated as a child's preferred sensory reinforcer. In Phase 2, we assessed whether children would play selectively with toys producing the preferred kind of sensory stimulation. The results showed the following. (1) Self-stimulatory behavior was found to be maintained by sensory reinforcement. When the sensory reinforcer was removed, self-stimulation extinguished. (2) The sensory reinforcers identified for self-stimulatory behavior also served as reinforcers for new, appropriate toy play. (3) The multiple treatment gains observed appeared to be relatively durable in the absence of external reinforcers for play or restraints on self-stimulation. These results illustrate one instance in which multiple behavior change may be programmed in a predictable, lawful fashion by using “natural communities of sensory reinforcement.”     

The elimination of autistic self-stimulatory behavior by overcorrection

No method is in general usage and of demonstrated effectiveness in eliminating the self-stimulatory behaviors of retardates and autistics. An Overcorrection rationale was used to develop such a method. The Overcorrection procedures consisted of a period of practice in the correct mode of the behavior contingent upon self-stimulatory behavior. The procedures were applied in a behavioral day-care program to three retarded children and one autistic child who exhibited object-mouthing, hand-mouthing, head-weaving and hand-clapping. For some behaviors, comparisons were made between the Overcorrection procedure and several alternative procedures, such as physical punishment by a slap, reinforcement for nonself-stimulatory behavior, a distasteful solution painted on the hand of a hand-mouther, and free reinforcement. The Overcorrection procedures eliminated the self-stimulatory behaviors of all four children in tutorial sessions and during the entire school day and were more effective than the alternative procedures in eliminating self-stimulation. The Overcorrection procedures appear to be rapid, enduring, and effective methods of eliminating self-stimulatory behavior.     

COMBINING NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AND DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES AS TREATMENT FOR ABERRANT BEHAVIOR

Research has shown that noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) can be an effective behavior-reduction procedure when based on a functional analysis. The effects of NCR may be a result of elimination of the contingency between aberrant behavior and reinforcing consequences (extinction) or frequent and free access to reinforcers that may reduce the participant's motivation to engage in aberrant behaviors or mands. If motivation is momentarily reduced, behavior such as mands may not be sensitive to positive reinforcement. In this study, for 3 children with aberrant behavior maintained by tangible positive reinforcement, differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior schedules were superimposed on NCR schedules to determine if mands could be strengthened. Results for the participants indicated that NCR did not preclude reinforcement of mands.     

Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition

We examined the extent to which noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), when used as treatment to reduce problem behavior, might interfere with differential reinforcement contingencies designed to strengthen alternative behavior. After conducting a functional analysis to identify the reinforcers maintaining 2 participants' self-injurious behavior (SIB), we delivered those reinforcers under dense NCR schedules. We delivered the same reinforcers concurrently under differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior (DRA) contingencies in an attempt to strengthen replacement behaviors (mands). Results showed that the NCR plus DRA intervention was associated with a decrease in SIB but little or no increase in appropriate mands. In a subsequent phase, when the NCR schedule was thinned while the DRA schedule remained unchanged, SIB remained low and mands increased. These results suggest that dense NCR schedules may alter establishing operations that result in not only suppression of problem behavior but also interference with the acquisition of appropriate behavior. Thus, the strengthening of socially appropriate behaviors as replacements for problem behavior during NCR interventions might best be achieved if the NCR schedule is first thinned.     

Sensory Extinction: A procedure for eliminating self-stimulatory behavior in developmentally disabled children

This study was designed to investigate the role of sensory reinforcement in the motivation of self-stimulation. If self-stimulatory behavior is maintained by its sensory consequences, such as the proprioceptive, auditory, or visual stimulation it produces, then such behavior should extinguish when those sensory consequences are not permitted. The present study introduces a new procedure, Sensory Extinction, in which certain sensory consequences are masked or removed, to examine whether self-stimulation is operant behavior maintained by sensory reinforcement. The effectiveness of Sensory Extinction was assessed by a reversal design for each of three autistic children, and the results showed the following. First, self-stimulation reliably extinguished when a certain sensory consequence was removed, then increased when that consequence was permitted. This was replicable within and across children. Second, different Sensory Extinction procedures were required for different self-stimulatory behaviors, since the sensory reinforcers supporting them were idiosyncratic across children. Finally, regarding clinical gains, the data suggest that Sensory Extinction may be a relatively convenient and rapid alternative for the treatment of self-stimulation. The present findings extend the efficacy of extinction as a behavior-modification technique to instances in which the reinforcer is purely sensory. The implications of these results for the treatment of other forms of deviant behavior are discussed.     

Effects of providing sensory stimulation to decrease self-stimulatory behavior: using additional food to suppress hand-mouthing behavior

This study describes the use of sensory stimulation to reduce self-stimulatory behavior of hand mouthing by an institutionalized adult male with profound developmental disabilities. The data showed that when an extra amount of food was presented to eat at meal time, the mouthing behavior decreased quickly to an appreciably lower level. Results suggested that additional food could effectively reduce hand-mouthing behavior in a short period of time if it served a similar function—to provide preferred sensory reinforcers to the individual. An interesting phenomenon which had been observed in this study was a shift in sensory stimulatory behavior or sensory reinforcer from one form to another. While hand mouthing was decreasing, vocalization seemed to be increasing. The advantages of providing additional food as a treatment strategy are discussed with reference to other studies using response inhibition to treat hand mouthing behavior. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

THE RELATIVE MOTIVATIONAL PROPERTIES OF SENSORY AND EDIBLE REINFORCERS IN TEACHING AUTISTIC CHILDREN

We compared the effects of sensory and edible reinforcers on resistance to satiation in three autistic children while learning visual discrimination tasks. Within-subject designs were used to compare a single sensory reinforcer with a single edible reinforcer and to compare multiple sensory reinforcers with multiple edibles. Results indicated that multiple sensory reinforcers maintained responding over more trials than did multiple edible reinforcers; however, the use of single sensory reinforcers and single edibles resulted in about equal numbers of trials to satiation. Both multiple and single sensory reinforcers produced higher percentages of correct responses than edible reinforcers. The findings are discussed in terms of the advantages of sensory reinforcers in teaching autistic children.     

Assessing the combined effects of resurgence and reinstatement in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder

Resurgence and reinstatement are laboratory models of relapse following treatments for problem behavior that arrange alternative sources of reinforcement, such as differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and noncontingent reinforcement. Resurgence models the elimination or reduction of reinforcers during treatment and reinstatement models the re‐presentation of reinforcers previously maintaining problem behavior. The present study examined individual and combined effects of resurgence and reinstatement in a translational model of treatment relapse with three children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. We first reinforced and then extinguished an arbitrary response while providing access to a preferred toy to model a version of noncontingent reinforcement with extinction. In the following phases, we examined resurgence by removing the toy, reinstatement by presenting the training reinforcer response‐independently, and a combination of resurgence and reinstatement. Overall, relapse of target responding reliably exceeded functionally similar responses never reinforced in the experimental situation. Most importantly, relapse tended to be greater when combining resurgence and reinstatement than when assessing either alone. These findings support previous studies showing that combinations of operations can increase treatment relapse. This translational model arranging simulated problem behavior with arbitrary tasks provides a platform from which to thoroughly and systematically assess methods for understanding and improving behavioral treatments.     

EFFECTS OF SUBJECT- VERSUS EXPERIMENTER-SELECTED REINFORCERS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF INDIVIDUALS WITH PROFOUND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

Results from a number of studies have shown that individuals with profound developmental disabilities often show differential approach behavior to stimuli presented in a variety of formats, and that such behavior is a reasonably good predictor of reinforcement effects when these “preferred” stimuli are used subsequently in a contingent arrangement. Recent data suggest that reinforcement effects may be enhanced further by allowing individuals to select, just prior to training sessions, which (of several) preferred stimuli would be used as reinforcers, but whether this method is superior to one based on selection by a teacher or therapist has not been adequately addressed. We compared the effects of these two methods of reinforcer selection on rates of responding on a free-operant task, using stimuli previously identified as potential reinforcers. Results obtained with 4 subjects indicated little or no difference in reinforcement effects when stimuli were selected by subjects rather than experimenters. Implications of these results with respect to choice and its relation to reinforcement are discussed.     

Basing the treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors on hypotheses of their causes.

Stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors are common forms of maladaptive responding demonstrated by severely handicapped persons. Various review papers suggest that no single treatment procedure is universally effective. Although there may be many reasons for this finding, one could be that people engage in these behaviors for various reasons, and that procedures that are incompatible with the cause of the behavior are unlikely to be effective. These studies also suggest many hypotheses for the development and maintenance of these behaviors, three of which are the self-stimulation, positive reinforcement, and negative reinforcement hypotheses. The purpose of this paper was to determine whether one of these hypotheses could be matched to the cause of the behavior and used as an effective treatment procedure. We therefore compared one hypothesis with one other for 3 subjects in a three-phase study. During baseline, data were taken in two classrooms for each subject, and a judgement was made about the hypothesis most likely to be related to the cause of the behavior. During the second phase, a treatment based on that hypothesis was used in one classroom, and a treatment based on another hypothesis was used in the second classroom. During the third phase, the treatment that was most effective in the second phase was used in both classrooms. Results showed that a successful treatment program can be developed on an hypothesis of why the behavior occurred during baseline. Results are discussed in terms of supporting the argument that treatment programs should be based on a functional analysis of the behavior in its environmental context.     

Additional free reinforcers increase persistence of problem behavior in a clinical context: A partial replication of laboratory findings

Behavioral momentum theory is a quantitative framework used to characterize the persistence of behavior during response disruptors as a function of baseline stimulus–reinforcer relations. Results of several investigations have shown that alternative reinforcement can increase the resistance to change of a target response during extinction. In the present study, concomitant variable‐interval fixed‐time schedules of reinforcement for problem behavior were employed to simulate naturalistic situations involving the superimposition of response‐independent reinforcers on a baseline schedule of reinforcement for problem behavior, as in the common use of noncontingent reinforcement treatments. Resistance to change of problem behavior was assessed during postsession periods of extinction by comparing response rates in extinction following sessions with and without additional reinforcer deliveries arranged by fixed‐time schedules. For 2 out of 3 participants, problem behavior tended to be more resistant to extinction following periods in which additional fixed‐time reinforcers were delivered. These results are discussed in terms of potential effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior when the intervention is discontinued or implemented without good treatment integrity.     

Persistence during and resurgence following noncontingent reinforcement implemented with and without extinction

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is typically implemented with extinction (EXT) for destructive behavior reinforced by social consequences and without EXT for destructive behavior reinforced by sensory consequences. Behavioral momentum theory (BMT) predicts that responding will be more persistent, and treatment relapse in the form of response resurgence more likely, when NCR is implemented without EXT due to the greater overall rate of reinforcement associated with this intervention. We used an analogue arrangement to test these predictions of BMT by comparing NCR implemented with and without EXT. For two of three participants, we observed more immediate reductions in responding during NCR without EXT. However, for all participants, NCR without EXT produced greater resurgence than NCR with EXT when we discontinued all reinforcers during an EXT Only phase, although there was variability in response patterns across and within participants. Implications for treatment of destructive behavior using NCR are discussed.     

A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME OF SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF REINFORCEMENT WITHIN GROUP OPERANT SYSTEMS1

Many different reinforcement contingencies are found in group operant systems, such as token economies and point systems. Some systems use group contingencies in which the reinforcement of any one participant may depend on the behavior of some other group member. Other programs are individual, in that participants earn reinforcers dependent only on their own behavior. The various possible arrangements of people and their response requirements are labelled “social conditions of reinforcement” in this paper. Previous attempts at classification have failed to categorize the variety of social conditions of reinforcement. In addition, some conditions that may produce behaviorally different effects have not been separated. The present paper classifies the social conditions of reinforcement found in applied programs in a three-dimensional scheme. The efficacy of the three major dimensions—reinforcing agent, recipient response requirement, and group response requirement—is supported by clinical and research data. The reinforcing agent dimension refers to the person(s) who dispenses reinforcers to group members. This major dimension is further subdivided: one or several agents may be either designated or nondesignated. Recipients are the group members who receive reinforcement. This dimension is also subdivided: one or several recipients in a social condition of reinforcement may obtain reinforcers either contingently or noncontingently. The group response requirement is a criterion that must be satisfied before any group participant is eligible for reinforcement. Some systems have no group requirement, and others have a group requirement that must be met by some designated or nondesignated participant(s). Supportive references and examples are given in the explanation of each dimension and subdimension. The behavioral impact of the various categories is emphasized. For all major dimensions, applied implications and research suggestions are discussed. Concluding remarks center on the utility of the present scheme, the classification of operant procedures other than positive reinforcement, and both theoretical and applied issues requiring further study (e.g., the long-term effects of participation in group contingencies).     

Sensory extinction of stereotyped object-dropping: Identification of a reinforcer for skill training

Stereotyped motor behavior, resistant to treatment by nonaversive means, can be effectively reduced by sensory extinction. Sensory extinction is a procedure which can identify the powerful sensory reinforcers maintaining stereotyped behavior. In this single-subject, multiple-baseline experiment, the elimination of auditory feedback to a workshop trainee who was blind and profoundly retarded, extinguished stereotyped object-dropping. Contingent auditory stimulation delivered for a fixed ratio of correct object placements increased correct responding. Results were discussed in terms of the utility of selecting reinforcers on the basis of empirical manipulations, such as sensory extinction, and in terms of self-control versus contingency functions of sensory reinforcement.     

TOKEN REINFORCEMENT DURING THE INSTATEMENT AND SHAPING OF FLUENCY IN THE TREATMENT OF STUTTERING

The value of token reinforcement in the instatement and shaping of fluency was examined in an intensive treatment program for adult stutterers. Experiment 1 examined the effect of removing the tangible back-up reinforcers for the token system and found that clients' performance in the program was equally good with or without these back-up reinforcers, suggesting that a strict token economy may not be crucial to rapid progress through treatment. Experiment 2 compared contingent and noncontingent token reinforcement, while controlling for some variables that may have confounded the results of earlier research, and found no difference in clients' performance. Experiment 3 examined the effect of the entire removal of token reinforcement. Performance was found to be no worse under a “no tokens” system than under a system of tokens with back-up reinforcers. It is argued that in a highly structured treatment program where many other reinforcers are operating, token reinforcement may be largely redundant. Clinical and theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.     

An integrated model for guiding the selection of treatment components for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement

We evaluated the usefulness of 2 assessments to guide treatment selection for individuals whose prior functional analysis indicated that automatic reinforcement maintained their problem behavior. In the 1st assessment, we compared levels of problem behavior during a noncontingent play condition and an alone or ignore condition. In the 2nd, we assessed participants’ relative preferences for automatic reinforcement and social reinforcers in a concurrent‐operants arrangement. We used the results of these 2 assessments to assign 5 participants to a treatment based on noncontingent access to social reinforcers or to a treatment based on differential access to social reinforcers. We conducted monthly probes with the participants over 10 to 12 months to evaluate the effects of the treatment procedures. All participants showed reductions in problem behavior over this period.     

Delivering alternative reinforcement in a distinct context reduces its counter‐therapeutic effects on relapse

Delivery of alternative reinforcers in the presence of stimuli previously associated with reinforcement for target behavior increases the susceptibility of target behavior to relapse. To explore contingencies that might mitigate this counter‐therapeutic effect, we trained pigeons on a procedure that entailed extinction of previously reinforced target‐key pecking, access to a distinct stimulus context contingently on refraining from target behavior (differential‐reinforcement‐of‐other‐behavior; DRO), and reinforcement of alternative‐key pecks (differential‐reinforcement of alternative behavior; DRA) in that context. This DRO‐DRA treatment was compared with standard DRA in successive conditions, counterbalanced across pigeons. Target behavior extinguished more rapidly in the Standard‐DRA condition. When alternative reinforcement was discontinued, however, there was less resurgence after DRO‐DRA than after Standard DRA. In a third condition, the DRO contingency was suspended so that the former DRA stimuli were not presented (DRO‐NAC), and resurgence was greater than in the Standard‐DRA and DRO‐DRA conditions. Reinstatement produced by response‐independent reinforcers was small and similar across conditions. Subsequent reacquisition of target‐key pecking under baseline reinforcement conditions was faster following DRO‐NAC than Standard‐DRA or DRO‐DRA. These findings suggest that DRO‐DRA might serve as a useful method in clinical settings for reducing problem behavior while minimizing the threat of posttreatment relapse.     

NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AS TREATMENT FOR SEVERE PROBLEM BEHAVIOR: SOME PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) as a treatment for problem behavior has typically included (a) continuous access to reinforcers at the onset of treatment and (b) extinction. We extended research on NCR by conducting a three-phase preliminary investigation of these components. In Phase 1, a functional analysis showed that the problem behavior of 3 participants with developmental disabilities was maintained by tangible positive reinforcement. In Phase 2, treatment started with the initial NCR interval based on the latency to the first problem behavior during baseline. In Phase 3, treatment consisted of NCR without extinction to determine whether extinction was an essential treatment component. Results showed that the initial NCR schedule based on latency (Phase 2) and NCR without extinction (Phase 3) were effective for reducing rates of problem behavior compared with baseline. Findings are discussed regarding the initial schedule of reinforcement and extinction as components of NCR.     

The Influence of Function,Topography, and Setting on Noncontingent Reinforcement Effect Sizes for Reduction in Problem Behavior: A Meta-analysis of Single-Case Experimental Design Data

Richman et al. (J Appl Behav Anal 48:131–152, 2015) completed a meta-analytic analysis of single-case experimental design data on noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) for the treatment of problem behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities. Results showed that (1) NCR produced very large effect sizes for reduction in problem behavior, (2) NCR implemented with the functional reinforcer resulted in a slightly larger effect size compared to NCR using nonfunctional reinforcers, and (3) schedule thinning for the delivery of reinforcers typically produced temporary and modest increases in levels of problem behavior. The purpose of the current study was to conduct follow-up analyses to determine whether treatment implementation setting, topography, or the function of problem behavior influenced the treatment effect size for problem behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities. Follow-up analyses showed that NCR effect sizes were very similar across inpatient and outpatient settings and across aggression and property destruction versus self-injurious behaviors. Results showed that NCR effect size for treatment of problem behavior maintained by a form of social reinforcement was slightly greater than problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement. Results are discussed in terms of applying NCR in school settings as an initial treatment for problem behaviors that can interfere with academic, adaptive, and vocational skill acquisition for students with developmental disabilities.