A Microanalysis of the Controlling Stimulus-Response Relations Engendered During the Assessment of Stimulus Overselectivity

Bickel, Warren K.; Richmond, G.; Bell, James J.; Brown, Kirby

doi:10.1007/bf03394943

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early evidence of inhibitory control comes from Bickel et al (1986). These researchers trained four profoundly retarded adults with a two-choice discrete-trial procedure using compound visual stimuli (e.g., the S?…”

Section: Lack Of Inhibitory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has not received much attention clinically, experimentally, or theoretically, but it has potentially very important implications for an individual's functioning and development. With the exceptions of work by Bickel et al (1986) and by Ploog and Kim (2007), overselectivity has only been assessed with regard to excitatory conditioning, which involves a so-called S?, a stimulus that signals the availability of reinforcement. In contrast, inhibitory conditioning involves an S-, a stimulus that signals the absence of reinforcement (not to be confused with a stimulus signaling the occurrence of an aversive stimulus).…”

Section: Lack Of Inhibitory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulus Overselectivity Four Decades Later: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications for Current Research in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Ploog

2010

J Autism Dev Disord

149

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review of several topics related to "stimulus overselectivity" (Lovaas et al., J Abnormal Psychol 77:211-222, 1971) has three main purposes: (1) To outline the factors that may contribute to overselectivity; (2) to link the behavior-analytical notion of overselectivity to current nonbehavior-analytical research and theory; and (3) to suggest remedial strategies based on the behavior-analytical approach. While it is clear that overselectivity is not specific to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and also that not all persons with ASD exhibit overselectivity, it is prevalent in ASD and has critical implications for symptoms, treatment, research, and theory. Weak Central Coherence and Enhanced Perceptual Functioning theories are briefly considered. The research areas addressed here include theory of mind, joint attention, language development, and executive function.

show abstract

Section: Lack Of Inhibitory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lack Of Inhibitory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus Overselectivity Four Decades Later: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications for Current Research in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Ploog

2010

J Autism Dev Disord

149

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, if the breadth of stimulus control is atypically limited, the outcome has been termed restricted stimulus control (Dube & McIlvane, 1997; Litrownik, McInnis, Wetzel‐Pritchard, & Filipelli, 1978) or stimulus overselectivity (reviewed in Lovaas, Koegel, & Schreibman, 1979; and Dube, 2009). Atypically restricted stimulus control is often observed in individuals who have intellectual or neurodevelopmental disabilities such as autism spectrum disorders, and it is a widely acknowledged problem in the education of such individuals (e.g., Barthold & Egel, 2001; Bickel, Richmond, Bell, & Brown, 1986; Schreibman, 1997). For example, special‐education students may identify printed words or other similar arrays of characters on the basis of the initial letter only (e.g., Dickson, Wang, Lombard, & Dube, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Observing Behavior and Atypically Restricted Stimulus Control

Dube

Dickson

Balsamo

et al. 2010

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restricted stimulus control refers to discrimination learning with atypical limitations in the range of controlling stimuli or stimulus features. In the study reported here, 4 normally capable individuals and 10 individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) performed two-sample delayed matching to sample. Sample-stimulus observing was recorded with an eye-tracking apparatus. High accuracy scores indicated stimulus control by both sample stimuli for the 4 nondisabled participants and 4 participants with ID, and eye tracking data showed reliable observing of all stimuli. Intermediate accuracy scores indicated restricted stimulus control for the remaining 6 participants. Their eye-tracking data showed that errors were related to failures to observe sample stimuli and relatively brief observing durations. Five of these participants were then given interventions designed to improve observing behavior. For 4 participants, the interventions resulted initially in elimination of observing failures, increased observing durations, and increased accuracy. For 2 of these participants, contingencies sufficient to maintain adequate observing were not always sufficient to maintain high accuracy; subsequent procedure modifications restored it, however. For the 5th participant, initial improvements in observing were not accompanied by improved accuracy, an apparent instance of observing without attending; accuracy improved only after an additional intervention that imposed contingencies on observing behavior. Thus, interventions that control observing behavior seem necessary but may not always be sufficient for the remediation of restricted stimulus control.

show abstract

“…dation and autism (e.g., Allen & Fuqua, 1985;Bickel, Richmond, Bell, & Brown, 1986). Although the problem is widespread, the remediation literature is remarkably small (for a recent summary, see Schreibman, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduction of Stimulus Overselectivity With Nonverbal Differential Observing Responses

Dube

McIlvane

1999

J of App Behav Analysis

142

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three individuals with mental retardation exhibited stimulus overselectivity in a delayed matching-to-sample task in which two sample stimuli were displayed on each trial. Intermediate accuracy scores indicated that participants could match one of the samples but not both of them. Accuracy in a baseline condition was compared to accuracy with a differential observing response procedure. This procedure prompted participants to make simultaneous identity-matching responses that required observation and discrimination of both sample stimuli. These observing responses were never followed by differential consequences. When observing responses were prompted, participants' accuracy scores improved. In a return to the baseline condition, when differential observing responses were no longer prompted, accuracy returned to intermediate levels. The results show that stimulus overselectivity can be greatly reduced by a behavioral intervention that controls observing behavior and verifies discrimination, but that exposure to such procedures alone may be insufficient for lasting benefits.

show abstract

A Microanalysis of the Controlling Stimulus-Response Relations Engendered During the Assessment of Stimulus Overselectivity

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

Stimulus Overselectivity Four Decades Later: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications for Current Research in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Stimulus Overselectivity Four Decades Later: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications for Current Research in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Observing Behavior and Atypically Restricted Stimulus Control

Reduction of Stimulus Overselectivity With Nonverbal Differential Observing Responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About