Stimulus Control and Language

1
Stimulus Control and Language
2
Why is Understanding Stimulus Control so
Important in Teaching Children with Autism?

• Because the aim of virtually all instruction is
  to get specific responses to occur reliably under
  particular antecedent stimulus conditions, all
  instructional techniques involve manipulations of
  antecedent stimuli, along with manipulations of
  consequent stimuli (Green, 2001, p. 74)

3
Why is Understanding Stimulus Control so
Important in Teaching Children with Autism?

• Spradlin and Brady (1999) conceptualized the
  impairments in language and social skills in
  children with autism
• as limitations in the development of stimulus
  control

4
Social Skill Deficiencies

• Appear very early in life
• as young as several months old
• By 1-year old many showed
• Less eye contact
• Imitate less
• Less likely to point out objects to others
• Failed to engage in reciprocal games such as
  pat-a-cake and peek-a-boo
• Less symbolic or make beileve play
• Less likely to recognize social emotional
  responses in other people

5
Communication Skill Deficits

• Less likely to
• demonstrate multiple nonverbal communicative
  behavior such as joint attention
• Response to names verbal directions
• More likely to request than label

6
Spradlin and Brady (1999)

• Proper stimulus control may not develop in
  children with autism because social stimuli do
  not function as reinforcers
• It has been suggested that the patterns of the
  human face and physical contact serve as primary
  reinforcers for typically developing infants
• Some children with autism avoid such contact
• Do faces and hugging not serve as reinforcers
  from infancy?
• What impact would this have on the development of
  other reinforcers? Social interactions?
  Language?
• Proper stimulus control may not develop because
  children with autism require more consistent
  relationships between antecedents, responses, and
  consequences

7
Classical Conditioning Limitations

• Infants developed conditioned responses by
  pairing various social stimuli with stimuli that
  elicited the rooting response.
• E.g., mothers voice or even footstep
• Perhaps children with autism fail to develop such
  conditioned responses
• The natural world is inconsistent in its pairing
  of social stimulus with unconditioned stimuli
• Perhaps children with autism require more
  consistent pairings than other infants for
  conditioning to occur or may be more likely to be
  conditioned to nonsocial aspects of their
  physical environment.

8
Limitations in Learning Simple Discrimination

• Perhaps children with autism require that a
  higher percentage of responses in the presence of
  a stimulus be followed by the same consequence,
  if they are to come under the control of that
  stimulus.
• Might explain why children with autism prefer
  playing with objects than people
• Contingencies of physical world may be more
  reliable that the contingencies of the social
  world.
• E.g., child gestures to parent may or may not be
  picked up. Child reaches out for object, always
  results in obtaining object

9
Limitations in Learning Simple Discrimination

• Overselectivity
• Lovaas found that children with autism often
  learn to respond to some of the stimulus but not
  to all of the stimulus of a complex stimulus
• Sunberg Partington (Cond Disc)
• Truck in the presence of a truck and the spoken
  word truck
• Typically developing child may respond truck
  in the presence of just a truck after a few
  pairings, a child with autism may learn to only
  response truck in the presence of the spoken
  word

10
Limitations in Learning Simple Conditional
Discrimination

• Most conventional stimulus control is conditional
• In the presence of discriminative stimulus a
  specific response will be reinforced only when
  conditional stimuli are present.
• Typically developing children master this easily
  and their behavior is reinforced for a high
  percentage of response they make in the presence
  of such discriminative stimuli
• Children with autism fail to make that
  conditional discrimination and may ultimately
  extinguish all responses to the discriminative
  stimuli
• Social behavior saying come play with me in
  the presence of Mom who is not otherwise engaged.
  Child with autism my try to initiate play all at
  the wrong times and eventually stop trying. Or
  initiate greetings all at the wrong times.

11
Social World
Social contingencies are often inconsistent
ReinforcerBeing held by Mom
SD Mom
Response Reach up
But mom may not always hold you when you reach
up And the way mom looks, smells, sounds, feels,
and holds you may be different
12
Non-social World

• Contingencies in the nonsocial physical world
  may be more consistent and reliable
• So may be more easily learned by children with
  autism
• Might explain why children with autism prefer
  playing with objects over people

Reinforcer Feel object in hand
Response Reach out
SD Object
Getting to hold the object is consistent and the
object is consistently the same
13
Limitations in Stimulus Class Acquisition

• Written spoken picture
• Word ? word ? of ?
  actual dog
• DOG DOG a dog
• Stimuli are linked by shared function not
  necessarily physical properties
• Children with autism are limited in their
  development of stimulus classes consisting of
  members without defining physical properties
• Leads to substantial limitations in language
  development
• Can imitate speech but that speech might have no
  relation to the objects and events that are
  typically related to that speech
• Or read but not understand what he is reading

14
Limitations in the Recombination of Minimal
Stimulus-Response Units

• Much of our behavior involves responding
  appropriately to relatively novel situations
• Generalized imitation
• Little similarity between what a child sees and
  the specific stimulus produced by the imitator's
  own behavior
• Perhaps the development of generalized imitation
  occurs as the development of instruction
  following behavior
• Multiple exemplar training results in learning a
  number of minimal stimulus response units when
  than may be recombined within the imitator is
  presented a novel combination of responses for
  imitation
• Children with autism tend to imitate objects
  easier than people
• Leads to substantial social skill deficit

15
Limitations in the Recombination of Minimal
Stimulus-Response Units

• Much of our behavior involves responding
  appropriately to relatively novel situations
• Following a verbal instruction
• By 2, most children can follow 3-word directions
• Made on the basis of conditional discriminations
• Children who can recombine units will be more
  effective because they have the appropriate
  word-object and word-action equivalences.
• Recombinations of conditional discriminations and
  equivalences classes may be limited in children
  with autism
• Child can complete complex chains of behavior if
  the chains were invariant but would fail to
  perform a series of responses on the basis of a
  novel instruction.

16
Use of Operant Teaching Methods

• Of course we can teach children with autism by
  establishing stimulus control by structuring
  consistent relations between specified stimuli
  behavior and consequences

17
Procedures to Overcome Basic Reinforcers Problems

• Classical conditioning and building motivational
  systems

18
Basic Discrimination Training Procedures

• Establishing attending skills and eye contact
  through prompting and reinforcement
• What type of prompts??

19
Establishing New Forms of Conditional Stimulus
Control

• Imitation
• Direction following

20
Establishing New Forms of Conditional Stimulus
Control

• Identity matching (single mode)
• Visual visual
• Auditory auditory
• Arbitrary matching (multimodal)
• Visual auditory
• Auditory visual

21
Teaching Recombination of Stimulus-Response Units

• Teach direction following to promote
  recombination's
• Give me, go get, put on
• Plane, paper, coat
• Test for generalization of any give me, go get,
  and put on instruction

22
Concept Formation

• Complex stimulus control that results in
• Generalization within a class of stimuli and
• Discrimination between classes of stimuli

23
Stimulus Class (Cooper et al., 2007)

• AKA Concept
• Set of stimuli that occasion a common response

These would probably be in the same stimulus
class for most people
24
Types of Stimulus Classes (Fields Reeve, 2000)

• Perceptual Class
• Stimuli in the set share some physical
  characteristics
• Examples dogs, flowers, children, chairs, cars,
  etc.
• Relational Class
• Stimuli in the set characterize some abstract
  relationship
• Example examples of bigger than,
  same/different
• Equivalence Class
• Stimuli do NOT share any physical characteristics
  (Stimuli go together just because society says
  so)
• Example numeral 1 written one spoken WUN
• Fields, L., Reeve, K. F. (2000). Synthesizing
  equivalence classes and natural categories from
  perceptual and relational classes. In J. C.
  Leslie, D. Blackman (Eds.). Experimental and
  applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 59-84).
  Reno, NV Context Press.

25
Equivalence Classes Definition

• a finite group of physically disparate stimuli
  (no perceptual similarity)
• stimuli become related solely as a function of
  teaching (Fields, Adams, Buffington, Yang,
  Verhave, 1996 Fields, Reeve, Adams, Brown,
  Verhave, 1991 Sidman Tailby, 1982 Sidman,
  1994)
• Emergence of accurate responding to untrained and
  nonreinforced stimulus-stimulus relations
• Following the reinforcement of responses to some
  stimulus-stimulus relations
• An equivalence class must contain at least three
  stimuli (but often has many more)

26
Example Stimuli in a 3-Member Equivalence Class

• Written word
• Spoken word
• A picture

DOG
DOG
27
Another Example
CAT

• Written word
• Spoken word
• A picture

CAT
28
Stimulus Equivalence

• Train
• Emergent Relations
• Symmetry B ? A and C?B
• Transitivity A ? C
• Equivalence C ? A

DOG
dog
B
C
A
29
Teaching Testing Summary

• We TAUGHT 2 conditional relations
• A ? B
• B ? C
• We TESTED for 4 EMERGENT (DERIVED) relations
• B ? A symmetry
• C ? B symmetry
• A ? C transitivity
• C ? A equivalence
• (Another set of tests for REFLEXIVITY (IDENTITY)
  is often omitted if the learner already has this
  skill in her repertoire A ? A B ? B
  C ? C )

30
Equivalence Class Training Testing Procedures

• Usually taught and tested with arbitrary
  match-to-sample (MTS)
• Symbolic notation is used to outline
  training/testing procedures
• A, B, C, N represent each of the disparate
  stimuli that will make up the class
• 1, 2, 3, etc. notate the number of classes to be
  established
• Thus, A1 first stimulus in class 1 B3 second
  stimulus in class 3 etc.

31
Training Testing Procedures

• To establish equivalence classes, at least two
  potential classes must be trained concurrently
• training establishes both substitutability of all
  stimuli within a particular equivalence class in
  addition to discrimination between classes

32
Training Testing Procedures

• To establish equivalence classes with three
  members, at least two stimulus-stimulus relations
  must be trained for each potential class
• Lets consider our DOG and CAT potential
  equivalence classes
• First train the AB relation (given stimulus A
  select stimulus B)
• the word DOG (A1) is presented as a sample
• The positive comparison (Co) would be the spoken
  word dog (B1) (Selection would result in positive
  feedback or reinforcement)
• the negative comparison (Co-) would be the spoken
  word cat (B2) (Selection would result in
  corrective feedback or no reinforcement)

33
Training AB relation
DOG
A1
DOG
CAT
B1
B2
34
Training Testing Procedures

• To train the AB relation
• word CAT (A2) is presented as a sample
• positive comparison (Co) would be the spoken
  word cat (B2) (Selection would result in positive
  feedback or reinforcement)
• negative comparison (Co-) would be the spoken
  word dog (B2) (Selection would result in
  corrective feedback or extinction)

35
Training AB relation
CAT
A2
DOG
CAT
B1
B2
36
Training Testing Procedures

• Once responding is 100 correct, we can conclude
  AB conditional relation has been learned
• At this point we can either continue training
  more conditional discriminations or we can do our
  first test for an EMERGENT (DERIVED) RELATION (a
  conditional discrimination that emerges with no
  direct training history)
• If the learner knows that A goes with B, can
  they demonstrate the reverse? (B goes with A)
• This emergent relation shows SYMMETRY

37
TESTING BA symmetry relation
CAT
B2
CAT
DOG
A1
A2
38
TESTING BA symmetry relation
DOG
B1
CAT
DOG
A1
A2
39
Training Testing Procedures

• the BA conditional relation is called symmetry
  because the relation is a mirror image or
  reversal of the one directly trained (i.e., AB
  then BA)
• At this point, we can continue training another
  conditional discrimination
• Lets train the BC conditional relation

40
Training BC relation
DOG
B1
C2
C1
41
Training BC relation
CAT
B2
C2
C1
42
Training Testing Procedures

• Once the BC conditional relation is learned, we
  can do our 2nd test for an EMERGENT (DERIVED)
  RELATION
• If the learner knows that B goes with C, can
  they demonstrate the reverse? (C goes with B)
• This emergent relation would show a SECOND
  SYMMETRY relation

43
TESTING CB symmetry relation
C1
DOG
CAT
B1
B2
44
TESTING CB symmetry relation
C2
DOG
CAT
B1
B2
45
Training Testing Procedures

• If CB symmetry TEST responding is 100 correct,
  we can continue testing for another EMERGENT
  (DERIVED) RELATION
• If the learner knows that A goes with B, and B
  goes with C, can they demonstrate that A goes
  with C?
• This emergent relation would show a TRANSITIVE
  relation

46
TESTING AC transitive relation
DOG
A1
C2
C1
47
TESTING AC transitive relation
CAT
A2
C2
C1
48
Training Testing Procedures

• If the AC transitive TEST responding is 100
  correct, we have one last test for another
  EMERGENT (DERIVED) RELATION
• If the learner knows that A goes with B, and B
  goes with C, can they demonstrate that C goes
  with A?
• This emergent relation would shows a combination
  of symmetry and transitivity it is called an
  EQUIVALENCE relation

49
TESTING CA equivalence relation
C1
CAT
DOG
A2
A1
50
TESTING CA equivalence relation
C2
CAT
DOG
A2
A1
51
Teaching Testing Summary

• We TAUGHT 2 conditional relations
• A ? B
• B ? C
• We TESTED for 4 EMERGENT (DERIVED) relations
• B ? A symmetry
• C ? B symmetry
• A ? C transitivity
• C ? A equivalence
• (Another set of tests for REFLEXIVITY (IDENTITY)
  is often omitted if the learner already has this
  skill in her repertoire A ? A B ? B
  C ? C )

52
Teaching Stimulus Classes

• We need to do a better job at this
• Teach
• picture ? object ? spoken word
• Test spoken word sets the occasion for the
  picture to ensure an equivalence class has been
  established

53
Children with Autism Have Difficulty Learning
Concepts (Reeve et al., 2007)

• May be due to failure to respond to a wide range
  of stimuli
• If a child only learns dog in the presence of 2
  dogs, then he might not learn the accurate
  concept dog why?
• May be due to failure to respond to multiple
  components of stimuli
• If a child only attends to four legs as a feature
  of dog, then he will not learn the accurate
  concept dog why?

54
Overselectivity

• Children with autism often respond to some parts,
  but not all parts, of a complex stimulus
• Lovaas, Schreibman, Koegel, and Rehm (1971)
• When parts of the stimulus were then presented
  alone
• Typically developing children responded to the
  complex stimulus and single stimuli similarly
• Children with autism responded primarily to only
  one of the stimuli (it differed across children
  which one)

Reinforcer candy
Response Press lever
55
Limitations in Equivalence Class Acquisition

• How would this affect language development?
• Child may be able to imitate speech, but it might
  have no relation to the objects and events
  typically related to it
• Relationship between dog and dog, but no
  relationship between dog and
• Or read but not understand what he is reading
• Relationship between DOG and dog, but no
  relationship between DOG and

56
Jackson, Williams, and Biesbrouck (2006)

• In general, studies show that people with basic
  language abilities demonstrate equivalence
  relations and those that dont do not
• It is not known if
• Language is necessary for the formation of
  equivalence classes OR
• The formation of equivalence classes plays a role
  in the development of language

57
So, How Should We Teach?

• There are different ways to present stimuli, but
  research suggests that
• Simultaneous Discrimination arrangement produces
  faster discrimination and generalization
• Simultaneous Discrimination Arrangement
• SD and S? are presented together at same time
• Successive Discrimination Arrangement
• SD and S? are presented separately

58
Green (2001)

• Present the comparisons in an array on a board
  (Velcro!)
• Begin each trial with having the learner make an
  observing response (look at teacher or point to
  sample)
• Teach the learner to point rather than put with
  same
• Have at least 3 comparisons on every trial
• Present the samples unsystematically. A good
  rule of thumb is dont present the same sample
  more than 2x in a row.
• Limit the auditory stimulus to the target word
  (i.e., dont say touch, point to)

59
(No Transcript)
60
Green (2001)

• Present each sample equally often.
• All comparisons should be in the field during
  every trial.
• Each comparison should be the correct answer for
  only 1 sample.
• Each comparison should be the incorrect answer
  equally often.
• The number of comparisons in the field should
  equal the number of samples presented in a block
  of trials.
• Within a session of trials, a different sample
  should be presented on each trial, but the same
  comparisons should appear on every trial.
• Each comparison should be the correct response
  for only one sample, and should be the incorrect
  response equally often.
• The position of the correct comparison should
  vary from trial to trial.
• Between trials, rearrange the comparison stimuli
  out of sight
• Use errorless teaching methods (most-to-least
  prompting and prompt fading)

61
Green (2001)
62
References

• Chavez-Brown, M., Scott, J., Ross, D. (2005).
  Antecedent selection Comparing simplified and
  typical verbal antecedents for children with
  autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14,
  153-165.
• Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., Heward, W. L.
  (2007). Applied behavior analysis. Upper Saddle
  River, NJ Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Fields, L., Reeve, K. F. (2000). Synthesizing
  equivalence classes and natural categories from
  perceptual and relational classes. In J. C.
  Leslie, D. Blackman (Eds.). Experimental and
  applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 59-84).
  Reno, NV Context Press.
• Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction
  for learners with autism Advances in stimulus
  control technology. Focus on Autism and Other
  Developmental Disabilities, 16, 72-85.
• Laraway, S. Snycerski, S., Michael, J., Poling,
  A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to
  describe them Some further refinements.
  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36,
  407-414.
• Lovaas, O. I., Schreibman, L., Koegel, R.,
  Rehm, R. (1971). Selective responding by
  autistic children to multiple sensory input.
  Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 211-222.
• Reeve, K. F., Reeve, S. A., Brown, J. L.
  (2007, August). Concept formation in children
  with autism What do we know about it? Paper
  presented at 3rd annual conference of the New
  Jersey Association for Behavior Analysis, Rutgers
  University.
• Spradlin, J. E., Brady, N. C. (1999). Early
  childhood autism and stimulus control. In P. M.
  Ghezzi, W. L. Williams, J. E. Carr (Eds.),
  Autism Behavior analytic perspectives (pp.
  49-65). Reno, NV Context Press.