StimulusStimulus Pairing Literature Review

1
Stimulus-Stimulus PairingLiterature Review

• Emily Gallant
• Caldwell College
• June 18, 2008

2
Content

• Overview
• Search criteria
• Research lineage
• Recent investigation

3
Content

• Critique of research
• Is current practice evidence-based?
• Future directions

4
Overview

• Goal
• Approximate first stages of language produciton
• Produce any vocal-verbal behavior
• Shape into mands
• Linear research history
• Primary researchers (WMU AVB)
• Sundberg
• Michael

5
Search Criteria

• PsycINFO
• stimulus-stimulus pairing (11)
• specific references cited by target studies
• Google
• to attain article text

6
Theoretical Concept

• Respondent conditioning (Watson, Pavlov)

7
Lineage

• Skinner (1957) Verbal behavior
• Language is behavior
• Verbal behavior can be automatically reinforced
• Bijou Baer (1965) Infant babbling
• Emerges due to respondent and operant learning
• Increased by automatic and direct reinforcement
• Other researchers (1950-1982)
• Support for role of automatic reinforcement
• Brown et al. extensive longitudinal analysis of
  parent-child interactions
• Mowrer (1950)
• Stimulus-stimulus pairing can increase
  vocalizations
• Done with mynah birds
• Sundberg, Partington, Michael, Sundberg (1996)

8
Lineage

• 1996 (2)
• 1998
• 2000
• 2002
• 2005
• 2006
• 2008

9
Seminal Study

• Sundberg, Partington, Michael, Sundberg (1996)
• 4 preschool children with DD
• 1 typically developing child
• Pre post-pairing design
• Cumulative recording over sessions
• All Ss emitted more vocalizations without direct
  reinforcement occurring

10
Early Support

• Smith, Michael, Sundberg (1996)
• 2 typically developing infants (11, 13 mo)
• Sounds already in repertoire amenable to
  contingencies of conditioned SR/punishment
• Yoon (1998)
• Sounds acquired w/o ext. SR
• Responses acquired mand functions
• Yoon Bennett (2000)
• 4 children with severe DD
• Ss had limited imitation repertoire, low BL vocal
  verbal behavior
• S-S pairing gt echoic training

11
Recent Difficulty

• Miguel, Carr, Michael (2002)
• 3 Ss with autism (3, 5, 5 yrs)
• Standardize pairing frequency
• Better experimental design
• Maintain effects
• Esch, Carr, Michael (2005)
• 3 Ss with autism (6.10, 6.11, 8.2 yrs)
• Maintain effects (avoid EXT)
• New sounds amenable to contingencies of SR?
• Normand Knoll (2006)
• 1 S with autism (3 yrs)

Stock, Schulze, Mirenda (2008)
12
Salient Differences

• Participant diagnosis
• Early - various DD, typically developing
• Later - autism
• Backup SR type type
• Early - social
• Later - edibles, toys
• Procedure
• Early - measures repeated within one session
• Later - measures repeated across sessions
• Treatment effect
• Early - yes
• Later - not so much

Stock, Schulze, Mirenda (2008)
13
Most Recent StudyStock, Schulze, Mirenda
(2008)

• Purpose
• Identify criteria for successful tx effect
• Younger Ss
• More trials-per-minute
• Social backup SR
• Whats new? Compare s-s pairing to imitation
  training control
• Participants
• 3 Ss with autism
• New to intervention
• Low sounds produced, little verbal im

14
Stock, Schulze, Mirenda (contd)

• DV
• Frequency of target, nontarget sounds
• Presession, postsession
• 5 min observation sessions
• IOA videotape 26-82 sessions criterion
• IV
• Alternating-tx (3 conditions)
• Unclear baseline/tx design

15
Stock, Schulze, Mirenda (contd)

• Results
• S1 Imitation training (10) gt S-S (5) gt control
  (0)
• S2 Imitation training (10) gtgtgt S-S (4) gt control
  (3-4)
• S3 S-S (80) gtgtgt imitation training (5) control
• Graph difficult to interpret
• Discussion
• Authors claim that no intervention significantly
  increased vocalizations
• Temporary effect for one S
• Reinforcer assessments recommended

16
Critique

• Strengths
• Variables well operationalized
• Works well for some children
• Process of elimination
• Limitations
• Procedures not well-standardized
• Reward potency sometimes unknown
• Does not work for a majority of subjects
• Imitation training works better for some

17
Is Practice Evidence-Based?

• Gina Greens Gold Standards

18
Future Directions

• Preference assessments
• Reward modality
• Procedural specifics
• Researcher relationship

19
References

• Esch, B. E., Carr, J. E., Michael, J. (2005).
  Evaluating stimulus-stimulus pairing and direct
  reinforcement in the establishment of an echoic
  repertoire of children diagnosed with autism. The
  Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 43-58.
• Longano, J. M., Greer, R. D. (2006). The
  effects of a stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure
  on the acquisition of conditioned reinforcement
  on observing and manipulating stimuli by young
  children with autism. Journal of Early and
  Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3, 62-80.
• Miguel, C. F., Carr, J. E., Michael, J. (2002).
  The effects of a stimulus-stimulus pairing
  procedure on the vocal behavior of children
  diagnosed with autism. The Analysis of Verbal
  Behavior, 18, 3-13.
• Smith, R., Michael, J., Sundberg, M. L.
  (1996). Automatic reinforcement and automatic
  punishment in infant vocal behavior. The Analysis
  of Verbal Behavior, 13, 39-48.
• Stock, R. A., Schulze, K. A., Mirenda, P.
  (2008). A comparison of stimulus-stimulus
  pairing, standard echoic training, and control
  procedures on the vocal behavior of children with
  autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24,
  123-133.
• Sundberg, M. L., Michael, J., Partington, J. W.,
  Sundberg, C. A. (1996). The role of automatic
  reinforcement in early language acquisition. The
  Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 13, 21-37.
• Vaughan, M. E., Michael, J. L. (1982).
  Automatic reinforcement An important but ignored
  concept. Behaviorism, 10, 217-227.