Competing stimulus assessments: A systematic review

The current review summarizes the literature on competing stimulus assessments (CSAs). CSAs are pretreatment assessments designed to systematically identify stimuli that reduce problem behavior (PB), ostensibly through reinforcer competition or substitution. We report on the participant characteristics, outcomes, and predictive validity of published CSAs that included (a) no-stimulus control trial(s), (b) test trials during which each stimulus was available singly and noncontingently, and (c) measurement of PB and stimulus engagement or contact. Results showed that CSAs have broad utility across a variety of topographies and functions of PB. In the majority of CSA applications for which extended analyses, or validations, were performed, stimuli shown to reduce PB during the CSA produced similar reductions during extended analysis. This was the case regardless of topography or function of PB, or whether the stimuli were assumed to be “matched” to the stimulation thought to be produced by PB. Implications for future research are discussed.     

DO PARAKEETS EXHIBIT DERIVED STIMULUS CONTROL? SOME THOUGHTS ON EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL PROCEDURES

Breaking new ground in the study of emergent stimulus control in nonverbal subjects may require innovation in procedures. A recent study of parakeets is exemplary. This study used intricate procedures for maintaining test-trial performance without differential reinforcement of the target emergent performance. Also, it used successive simple discrimination procedures, which are rare in such studies. Given the importance of these innovations and the outcomes that they produced, we suggest additional control procedures that would rule out the possibility of adventitious reinforcement of the test-trial performances.     

The effects of stimulus movement and attention on peripheral stimulus localization by 8- to 26-week-old infants

This study examined the effect of stimulus movement on localization probability and latency during attention and inattention. Forty infants, 10 each at 8, 14, 20, and 26 weeks of age were presented with a central stimulus. Then, a peripheral stimulus was presented (static or dynamic checkerboard). Stimulus movement did not affect localization probability. Infants localized the dynamic peripheral stimulus more quickly than the static peripheral stimulus when there was no focal stimulus. Focal stimulus attention attenuated this difference in localization latency between static and dynamic stimuli. Signal detection analysis showed that sensitivity to the peripheral stimulus increased over this age range along with a decrease in the bias against responding. The effects of attention were on response bias rather than stimulus sensitivity. These results imply attention affected the localization response to the peripheral stimulus but did not affect the sensitivity of the sensory and perceptual pathways to peripheral stimuli.     

分散空间注意条件下客体特征一致性对视觉特征错觉性结合的影响

本研究通过设置对空间注意资源的分配实施强行操作的情形下,探讨了主、次作业客体形状一致性和次作业客体间距对乏空间注意区次作业客体颜色、形状特征的检测及对特征错觉性结合的影响。实验结果表明：（１）分散空间注意使次作业区域注意减弱,对客体及其颜色和形状特征的识别均产生明显影响．而且对形状的影响又大于颜色;（２）特征错觉性结合率,主、次作业客体形状一致时比客体形状不一致时明显增大;（３）次作业客体间距对特征错觉性结合率无明显影响,但客体形状一致性和客体间距之间存在明显交互作用．     

EFFECTS OF WITHIN-STIMULUS AND EXTRA-STIMULUS PROMPTING ON DISCRIMINATION LEARNING IN AUTISTIC CHILDREN1

Two different prompting procedures to teach visual and auditory discriminations to autistic children were compared. The first involved presenting an added cue as an extra-stimulus prompt. This required the child to respond to both prompt and training stimulus. The second involved the use of a within-stimulus prompt. This consisted of an exaggeration of the relevant component of the training stimulus and thus did not require that the child respond to multiple cues. The results indicated that (1) children usually failed to learn the discriminations without a prompt, (2) children always failed to learn when the extra-stimulus prompt was employed but usually did learn with the withinstimulus prompt, and (3) these findings were independent of which modality (auditory or visual) was required for the discrimination.     

TEACHING GENERATIVE USE OF SENTENCE ANSWERS TO THREE FORMS OF QUESTIONS1

Three retarded and four economically disadvantaged children were taught, through modelling and reinforcement procedures, to produce complete sentences in response to three types of questions involving changes in verb inflections. To evaluate generalization of training, new but similar questions were periodically asked, answers to which were never modelled or reinforced. Modelling and reinforcement effectively taught correct sentence answers to training questions and produced new sentence answers to questions for which no specific training had been given.     

Inhibitory stimulus control following errorless discrimination learning

Three generalization procedures were used to investigate inhibitory stimulus control following discrimination learning with few errors. Three groups of pigeons acquired a discrimination between a green stimulus (the positive stimulus) and a vertical or horizontal line (the negative stimulus) through differential autoshaping followed by multiple schedule presentation of the two stimuli with gradually increasing stimulus durations. Genereralization testing was along a line-tilt continuum. For one group, the test involved a resistance-to-reinforcement procedure in which responses to all line tilts were reinforced on a variable-interval schedule. For a second group, also tested with the resistance-to-reinforcement procedure, the lines were superimposed on the green field that formerly served as the positive stimulus. A third group was tested in extinction with the combined stimuli. Control groups had no discrimination training but responding to green was nondifferentially reinforced. The control subjects responded more to all line tilts during testing than did the comparable experimental subjects, indicating that the negative stimulus had become an inhibitory stimulus. Both resistance-to-reinforcement groups revealed inhibitory gradients around the negative stimulus, but the gradient for the extinction group was relatively flat. These data are consistent with others that modify Terrace's early conclusion concerning the failure of inhibition to develop during errorless training.     

Limits to preference and the sensitivity of choice to rate and amount of food

Studies of choice holding food‐amount ratio constant while varying food‐rate ratio within sessions showed that local changes in preference depend on relative amount of food. The present study investigated whether sensitivity of choice to food‐rate ratio and sensitivity to food‐amount ratio are independent of one another when food‐rate ratios are varied across sessions and food‐amount ratios are varied within sessions. Food deliveries for rats’ presses on the left and right levers were scheduled according to three different food‐rate ratios of 1:1, 9:1, and 1:9; each food‐rate ratio lasted for 106 sessions and was arranged independently of seven food‐amount ratios (7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, and 1:7 food pellets) occurring within sessions in random sequence. Each amount ratio lasted for 10 food deliveries and was separated from another by a 60‐s blackout. Sensitivity to rate ratio was high (1.0) across food deliveries. Sensitivity to amount ratio was low when food rates were equal across alternatives, but was high when rate ratio and amount ratio opposed one another. When rate ratio and amount ratio went in the same direction, choice ratio reached an elevenfold limit which reduced sensitivity to approximately zero. We conclude that three factors affect sensitivity to amount: (1) the limit to preference, (2) the equal effect on preference of amounts greater than four pellets, and (3) the absence of differential effects of switches in amount in the equal‐rates (1:1) condition. Taken together, these findings indicate that rate and amount only sometimes combine independently as additive variables to determine preference when amount ratios vary frequently within sessions.     

Control by reinforcers across time and space: A review of recent choice research

Reinforcers affect behavior. A fundamental assumption has been that reinforcers strengthen the behavior they follow, and that this strengthening may be context‐specific (stimulus control). Less frequently discussed, but just as evident, is the observation that reinforcers have discriminative properties that also guide behavior. We review findings from recent research that approaches choice using nontraditional procedures, with a particular focus on how choice is affected by reinforcers, by time since reinforcers, and by recent sequences of reinforcers. We also discuss how conclusions about these results are impacted by the choice of measurement level and display. Clearly, reinforcers as traditionally considered are conditionally phylogenetically important to animals. However, their effects on behavior may be solely discriminative, and contingent reinforcers may not strengthen behavior. Rather, phylogenetically important stimuli constitute a part of a correlated compound stimulus context consisting of stimuli arising from the organism, from behavior, and from physiologically detected environmental stimuli. Thus, the three‐term contingency may be seen, along with organismic state, as a correlation of stimuli. We suggest that organisms may be seen as natural stimulus‐correlation detectors so that behavioral change affects the overall correlation and directs the organism toward currently appetitive goals and away from potential aversive goals. As a general conclusion, both historical and recent choice research supports the idea that stimulus control, not reinforcer control, may be fundamental.     

Examination of efficacious,efficient, and socially valid error‐correction procedures to teach sight words and prepositions to children with autism spectrum disorder

Prior research shows that learners have idiosyncratic responses to error‐correction procedures during instruction. Thus, assessments that identify error‐correction strategies to include in instruction can aid practitioners in selecting individualized, efficacious, and efficient interventions. The current investigation conducted an assessment to compare 5 error‐correction procedures that have been evaluated in the extant literature and are common in instructional practice for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Results showed that the assessment identified efficacious and efficient error‐correction procedures for all participants, and 1 procedure was efficient for 4 of the 5 participants. To examine the social validity of error‐correction procedures, participants selected among efficacious and efficient interventions in a concurrent‐chains assessment. We discuss the results in relation to prior research on error‐correction procedures and current instructional practices for learners with ASD.