Arnold Rincover

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.

The application of sensory extinction procedures to self-injury

Abstract The present study assessed whether sensory extinction procedures would be effective in treating some instances of self-injury. Three developmentally disabled children participated, each evidencing self-injury that was thought to be motivated by sensory rather than social reinforcement. Using reversal designs and a quasi-multiple baseline, sensory extinction procedures were introduced to remove the tactile stimulation from head-banging and face-scratching. The results showed the following: (1) the treatments were effective for all three children, immediately and substantially reducing the rate of self-injury; (2) the treatments required minimal child surveillance and staff training; (3) maintenance of treatment gains was programmed with a stimulus-fading procedure; (4) the target child and other children in the class continued to work without disruption while the treatments were in effect; and (5) teachers found the procedures ethically acceptable, and reported a large reduction in anxiety while the treatment was in effect.

Some motivational properties of sensory stimulation in psychotic children.

Abstract The purpose of this experiment was to assess the reinforcing properties of sensory stimulation for autistic children. Three different types of sensory stimulation were used: music, visual flickering stimulation (e.g., strobe light), and visual movement (e.g., windshield wiper). In a given session, one of the three kinds of sensory stimulation was presented for 5 sec contingent upon the childrens bar pressing (FR5). In Phase I, which was designed to assess the differential reinforcement value of these events, four children participated in sessions with each of the sensory events. In Phase II, designed to assess variables influencing the maintenance of responding for the sensory events, two children continued to participate in sessions with their preferred sensory event until satiation occurred. The results showed the following: (1) Sensory events could be used as reinforcing stimuli to produce a high rate of responding which was relatively durable over time: (2) the reinforcement function of the sensory events was idiosyncratic across children. with one child preferring one kind of sensory event, and another child preferring a different kind; (3) there was substantial variability in daily response rates: and (4) when a child satiated on a particular sensory event, a relatively small change in the sensory event was sufficient to recover a high rate of responding. The results of this study suggest that sensory reinforcers can profitably be used in behavior therapy with autistic children.

The generality of overselectivity in developmentally disabled children

Abstract A growing body of research suggests that low Mental Age (MA) autistic and retarded children show a unique stimulus control deficit, one that may cause many or most of their behavioral deficiencies. This problem, stimulus overselectivity, is evidenced when a child responds only to a restricted portion of the stimulus environment when compared with normal children. The purpose of this study was to assess whether this overselectivity is general across situations or whether it is restricted to certain stimulus/task conditions. Eight autistic children, who evidenced overselectivity on a preassessment task, and 8 normal children with similar MA levels participated. All children were trained on 3 tasks to determine if overselectivity varied as a function of different stimulus conditions. Each of the 3 tasks involved training a child to respond to (i.e., touch) a card containing a circle (S +) and to avoid a blank (S −) card. In each case, the circle comprised a series of dots. The difference between the 3 circles (tasks) was the distance between the successive dots making up each circle. Also, in the minimal separation condition the dots were smaller in size and greater in number than in the larger separation conditions. Of concern was whether autistic children learned about the gestalt (i.e., the circle), which required attention to multiple cues, or whether children would overselect and respond to the dots. The results showed that (1) stimulus overselectivity was found not to be a generalized deficit in autistic subjects; instead, it varied as a function of the stimulus variables; and (2) the stimulus variables manipulated in this study similarly influenced the responding of both normal and autistic children. The implications of these data for a theory of overselectivity are discussed.

Comparison of extra- and within-stimulus prompting to teach prepositional discriminations to preschool children with developmental disabilities

This study compared extra-stimulus to within-stimulus prompts in teaching children with developmental disabilities to discriminate the prepositional concepts “In” and “On”. Five preschool-aged children who had difficulty discriminating verbal instructions participated. Extra-stimulus prompts involved modeling, gestures, positioning, and auditory cues which did not form part of the target discrimination. Within-stimulus prompts manipulated the volume and intonational pattern of the verbal stimuli. Four children did not learn the discrimination with extra-stimulus prompting. All four of these children, plus a fifth child who did not have prior experience with extra-stimulus prompting, reached criterion in the within-stimulus prompting condition. The success of the within-stimulus prompts may be related to their enhancing phonetic differences between the verbal stimuli.

“Tunnel vision”: A possible keystone stimulus control deficit in autistic children*

Little is known about the acquisition of stimulus control in autistic children. Many studies comment on the incidental, unintended, and often bizarre stimulus control acquired when normal discrimination learning procedures are used. Earlier studies suggested the problem may involve autistic childrens inability to respond to multiple, simultaneous cues. While this has been clearly demonstrated in some instances, subsequent data have shown that autistic children sometimes do respond to multiple cues. The question remains, then: What variables influence stimulus control in autistic children? The present study examined one alternative, the possible effects of the absolute distance between cues, in an attempt to better understand (and program) stimulus control in autistic children. Three autistic children were trained to select a card containing a stimulus array comprised of three visual cues. The distance of each cue from the center cue was varied, using small, medium and large distance conditions. Stimulus control probes were conducted for each distance condition to assess which of the features the children learned about. The results revealed that the absolute distance between the cues determined the number of stimulus features to which the autistic child responded; decreasing the distance between cues served to increase the number of cues that controlled responding. The distances used in this study did not, however, affect the responding of MA-matched and CA-matched normal children. The possible role of “tunnel vision” and “the distance between cues” in treating and understanding autistic children are discussed.