孤独症谱系障碍者的生物运动探测障碍：基于行为与神经的证据

关于孤独症谱系障碍个体探测生物运动的能力是否受损,已有行为研究尚存分歧。导致分歧的原因可能是实验刺激、实验任务和测量指标存在差异。然而,神经研究却一致证实其潜在的神经机制存在异常。领域特殊性观点认为该障碍可能是基于后侧颞上沟功能异常的社会性功能障碍,也可能是基于镜像神经元功能异常的社会性功能障碍;而领域一般性观点认为该障碍可能是基于背侧视觉流功能异常的视运动知觉障碍,也可能基于脑功能联结异常的弱中央统合障碍。据此,本文将从研究范式、行为表现及潜在机制三个方面梳理相关研究,以期为后续研究提供新方向。     

A progressive model for teaching children with autism to follow gaze shift

Gunby, Rapp, Bottoni, Marchese and Wu (2017) taught three children with autism spectrum disorder to follow an instructor's gaze shift to select a specific item; however, Gunby et al. used different types of prompts with each participant. To address this limitation, we used a progressive training model for increasing gaze shift for three children with autism spectrum disorder. Results show that each participant learned to follow an adult's shift in gaze to make a correct selection. In addition, two participants displayed the skill in response to a parent's gaze shift and with only social consequences; however, the third participant required verbal instruction and tangible reinforcement to demonstrate the skill outside of training sessions.     

Promoting the emergence of advanced knowledge: A review of peak relational training system: Direct training module by Mark R. Dixon

Mark Dixon's (2014) manual, PEAK Relational Training System: Direct Training Module, proposes a novel approach to manualized evaluation and curriculum development. Dixon's PEAK system, introduced in the book as the first of four modules, translates derived relational responding methodology into a new verbal‐behavior approach. The PEAK system is firmly rooted in the basic, conceptual, and applied behavior‐analytic tradition; however, it differs substantially from the competition in its unique application of relational frame theory to produce efficient learning. The manual's accessible nature renders it a viable product for many users and readers. The growing empirical support for PEAK’s efficacy, usability, and psychometrics is impressive and provides a robust empirical basis for the system that is not described within the pages of the manual. Behavior analysts may shy away from a manualized system that explicitly omits discussion of scholarship and empirical bases but would be remiss in doing so, given the potential of PEAK to revolutionize the way clinicians and parents apply the verbal behavior approach.     

The use of matrix training to promote generative language with children with autism

Matrix training consists of planning instruction by arranging components of desired skills across 2 axes. After training with diagonal targets that each combine 2 unique skill components, responses to nondiagonal targets, consisting of novel combinations of the components, may emerge. A multiple‐probe design across participants was used to evaluate matrix training with known nouns (e.g., cat) and verbs (e.g., jumping) with 5 children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Following baseline of Matrix 1 and a generalization matrix, diagonal targets within Matrix 1 were trained as noun–verb combinations (e.g., cat jumping). Posttests showed recombinative generalization within Matrix 1 and the generalization matrix for 4 participants. For 1 participant, diagonal training across multiple matrices was provided until correct responding was observed in the generalization matrix. Results support the use of matrix training to promote untrained responses for learners with ASD and offer a systematic way to evaluate the extent of generalization within and across matrices.     

Teaching mands for information using ‘when’ to children with autism

Previous research has evaluated contrived motivating operations to teach mands for information. However, literature evaluating acquisition of the mand when? is comparatively limited. As an extension of Shillingsburg, Bowen, Valentino, & Pierce (2014), we taught three children with autism to engage in mands for information using when under alternating conditions in which a contrived establishing operation was present (EOP ) or absent (EOA ). Following training with a constant prompt delay, all participants acquired the mand for information and demonstrated correct use of the provided information and a decrease in inappropriate attempts to access restricted items.     

Using Community Partnerships to Better Understand the Barriers to Using an Evidence‐Based,Parent‐Mediated Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorder in a Medicaid System

Service use disparities have been noted to impede under‐resourced families' ability to access high‐quality services for their child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). These disparities are particularly relevant for parent‐mediated interventions and may suggest a lack of fit between these interventions and the needs of under‐resourced community settings. This study used Roger's Diffusion of Innovations theory to guide community partnerships aimed at understanding the perceived compatibility, complexity, and relative advantage of using an evidence‐based, parent‐mediated intervention (Project ImPACT) within a Medicaid system. Three focus groups were conducted with 16 Medicaid‐eligible parents, and three focus groups were conducted with 16 ASD providers operating within a Medicaid system. Across all groups, parents and providers reported general interest in using Project ImPACT. However, primary themes emerged regarding the need to (a) reduce the complexity of written materials; (b) allow for a more flexible program delivery; (c) ensure a strong parent–therapist alliance; (d) involve the extended family; and (e) help families practice the intervention within their preexisting routines. Results are discussed as they relate to the design and fit of evidence‐based, parent‐mediated interventions for under‐resourced community settings.     

THE EFFECTS OF THE QUESTION “WHAT IS THIS?” ON TACT-TRAINING OUTCOMES OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

Tact training is a common element of many habilitative programs for individuals with developmental disabilities. A commonly recommended practice is to include a supplemental question (e.g., “What is this?”) during training trials for tacts of objects. However, the supplemental question is not a defining feature of the tact relation, and prior research suggests that its inclusion might sometimes impede tact acquisition. The present study compared tact training with and without the supplemental question in terms of acquisition and maintenance. Two of 4 children with autism acquired tacts more efficiently in the object-only condition; the remaining 2 children acquired tacts more efficiently in the object + question condition. During maintenance tests in the absence of the supplemental question, all participants emitted tacts at end-of-training levels across conditions with no differential effect observed between training conditions.Key words: autism, language training, stimulus control, tacts, verbal behaviorSkinner (1957) defined the tact as a response “evoked by a particular object or event or property of an object or event” (p. 82) and considered it to be one of the most important verbal operants. Tacts are maintained by generalized social reinforcement and, thus, they are central to many social interactions. For example, the tact “That cloud looks like a horse” (under the control of a visual stimulus) could evoke a short verbal interaction about the sky or horses. The tact “My tummy hurts” (under the control of an interoceptive stimulus) could evoke soothing statements from a parent. A child who tacts “doggie” in the presence of a cat likely would evoke a correction statement from an adult, further refining two stimulus classes (i.e., dog and cat). These examples illustrate that, despite their topographical differences, the tact relations share antecedent control by a nonverbal discriminative stimulus (S^D) and are maintained by generalized social reinforcement.In habilitative programs for individuals with language impairments, autism, and intellectual disabilities, tacts often are taught for objects (e.g., ball), object features (e.g., color, size, shape), activities (e.g., jumping), prepositions (e.g., between), and emotions (e.g., sad) among others. Although conceptualized differently among therapeutic approaches, the tact relation occupies a central position in many early-intervention curricula. For example, Lovaas (2003) and Leaf and McEachin (1999) describe these relations as expressive labels and recommend that they be taught early in language training using three-dimensional objects accompanied by the supplemental questions “What is it?” or “What''s this?” Alternatively, Sundberg and Partington (1998) explicitly refer to the relation as a tact and recommend beginning instruction by including the question “What is it?” before eventually fading the question. In addition to these clinical manuals, the use of supplemental questions during tact training has appeared in some empirical studies on tact or expressive-label training (e.g., Braam & Sundberg, 1991; Coleman & Stedman, 1974), but not others (e.g., Williams & Greer, 1993). Regardless of whether tact training initially includes supplemental questions prior to response opportunities, tacts ultimately should be emitted readily under the sole control of the nonverbal S^D as well as when it happens to be accompanied by a question.Conceptually, at least four potential problems could arise from introducing supplemental questions early and consistently in tact training. First, the acquired responses might not be emitted unless the question is posed (i.e., prompt dependence). This problem would lead to few spontaneous tacts occurring outside the explicit stimulus control of the training environment. Williams and Greer (1993) compared comprehensive language training conducted under the stimulus control specified in Skinner''s (1957) taxonomy of verbal behavior to a more traditional psycholinguistic perspective with supplemental questions and instructions embedded within trials. For all three adolescents with developmental disabilities, the targets taught from the verbal behavior perspective were maintained better in natural contexts than those taught from the psycholinguistic perspective. However, because data were not reported for each individual verbal operant, it is unclear what specific impact their tact-training procedures had on the outcomes.The second potential problem is that the supplemental question might acquire intraverbal control over early responses and interfere with the acquisition of subsequent tact targets. For example, Partington, Sundberg, Newhouse, and Spengler (1994) showed that the tact repertoire of a child with autism had been hindered by prior instruction during which she was asked “What is this?” while being shown an object. The supplemental question subsequently evoked previously acquired responses and blocked the ability of new nonverbal S^Ds (i.e., objects) to evoke new responses. Partington et al. then showed that new tacts were acquired by eliminating the supplemental question from instructional trials.The third potential problem is that learners might imitate part of or the entire supplemental question prior to emitting the target response (e.g., “What is it” → “What is it … ball.”). For example, Coleman and Stedman (1974) demonstrated that a 10-year-old girl with autism imitated the question “What is this?” while being taught to label stimuli depicted in color photographs. Such an outcome results in a socially awkward tact repertoire and requires additional intervention to remedy the problem.Finally, including supplemental questions during tact training might impede skill acquisition, perhaps via a combination of the problems described earlier. Sundberg, Endicott, and Eigenheer (2000) taught sign tacts to two young children with autism who had prior difficulty acquiring tacts. In one condition, the experimenter held up an object and asked, “What is that?” In the comparison condition, the experimenter intraverbally prompted the participant to “sign [object name]” in the presence of the object. Sundberg et al. demonstrated substantially more efficient tact acquisition under the sign-prompt condition than when the question “What is that?” was included in trials; the latter condition sometimes failed to produce mastery-level responding.Teaching an entire tact repertoire while including supplemental questions (e.g., “What is it?”) during training trials could produce a learner who is able to talk about his or her environment only when asked to do so with similar questions. To the extent that this is not a therapist''s clinical goal, teaching the tact under its proper controlling variables may eliminate such problems. Of course, inclusion of supplemental questions during the early phases of language training could be faded over time such that the target tact relation is left intact prior to the end of training (Sundberg & Partington, 1998). However, the aforementioned studies have documented problems with using supplemental questions during tact training. Given the ubiquity of tact training in habilitation programs, the numerous problems that may arise when supplemental questions are included in training trials, and the limited research on the topic, further investigation is warranted. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to compare directly the rate of acquisition and subsequent maintenance of tacts taught using only a nonverbal S^D (i.e., object only) with tacts taught using a question (“What is this?”) in conjunction with the nonverbal S^D (i.e., object + question). The present study extends earlier research by examining both acquisition and maintenance and by including individuals with no prior history of formal tact training.     

THE INFLUENCE OF MOTIVATING OPERATIONS ON GENERALIZATION PROBES OF SPECIFIC MANDS BY CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

We investigated the influence of motivating operations on the generalization of newly taught mands across settings and communication partners for 3 children with autism. Two conditions were implemented prior to generalization probes. In the first condition, participants were given access to a preferred item until they rejected the item (i.e., abolishing operation). In the second condition, the item was not available to participants prior to generalization probes (i.e., establishing operation). The effects of these conditions on the generalization of newly taught mands were evaluated in a multielement design. Results indicated differentiated responding during generalization probes in which more manding with the target mand was observed following the presession no‐access condition than in the presession access condition. These results support the consideration of motivating operations when assessing generalization of target mands to various untrained contexts.     

The emergence of untrained mands and tacts in children with autism

Despite Skinner's (1957) assertion that verbal operants are initially functionally independent, recent studies have suggested that in some cases the acquisition of one verbal operant (e.g., mand) gives rise to the other (e.g., tact) without explicit training. The present study aimed to evaluate the functional independence of mands and tacts during instruction with children with autism. Four boys with autism (3 to 6 years old) were taught to construct two 4‐piece structures. Two participants were taught directly to mand, whereas the other 2 were taught to tact the names of the pieces. The effects of training were evaluated in a multiple probe design across verbal operants and tasks. Three of the 4 participants demonstrated an immediate transfer of control from 1 verbal operant to the other. These results were consistent with previous research with typically developing young children.