Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication with auditory stimulation

Abstract

This study examined a conjugate approach for evaluating auditory stimulus preference for 81 participants using force as a continuous response dimension. First, the researchers used a verbal preference assessment to evaluate each participant's preference for listening to five genres of music. This process identified high‐preference and low‐preference music for each participant. Thereafter, the researchers exposed each participant to the five music genres in a randomized order while using a hand dynamometer to measure their response force to increase the auditory clarity of the music. The results indicate (a) 63% of the participants' high‐preference music genres corresponded to the genre for which they exerted the highest mean force and (b) most participants' low‐preference music genres corresponded to the genre for which they exerted the lowest mean force. These findings are consistent with those from Davis et al. (2021) and further support using conjugate preparations for measuring the relative value of some stimulus events.

Assessing stimulus preference using response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication and extension

“…As this study was a replication and extension of Davis et al (2021), andCook et al (2024) to a degree, the apparatus was similar. The researchers used custom software written in Labview (NI, Austin, TX, USA) for programming events and data collection.…”

“…Software sampled forces from the dynamometer at 20 samples per second and reported the average and maximal force obtained for each 20-sample window. Previous tests with the dynamometer indicated that it naturally fluctuated by 0.1 kg around zero even at rest (Cook et al, 2024;Davis et al, 2021). The program implemented a progressive schedule whereby response criteria were updated second by second.…”

“…The researchers evaluated the correspondence between participants' preferences for the five pictorial stimuli as determined by the VMSWO assessment and the force they exerted via the hand dynamometer to view each stimulus using a within-subjects correlation design. Specifically, this study compared each participant's VMSWO rank of the five pictorial stimuli with the peak and mean force they exerted to view the images using a variation of a single-case randomization design (Cook et al, 2024;Davis et al, 2021;Kazdin, 2011;Levin et al, 2012).…”

“…Several applied and translational studies have shown the potential of synchronous and conjugate schedules for evaluating stimulus preference and the efficacy of those stimuli to serve as reinforcers (Cook et al, 2024;Curiel et al, 2024;Davis et al, 2021;Diaz de Villegas et al, 2020;Falligant et al, 2018Falligant et al, , 2020MacAleese et al, 2015;Peterson et al, 2024; see also Pel aez-Nogueras et al, 1996). Davis et al (2021) used a conjugate preparation to measure 54 college students' preferences for pictorial stimuli.…”

“…The purpose of this study was to systematically replicate and extend the Davis et al (2021) study as a further proof of concept for using response force to determine stimulus preference and the efficacy of stimuli to serve as reinforcers. A similar study was performed by Cook et al (2024) using auditory stimuli, but here we sought to examine the correspondence between participants' rankordered preferences from a VMSWO assessment for pictorial stimuli and their rank-ordered response force exerted to view those same images with a conjugate preparation. In terms of extending the Davis et al study, we sought to demonstrate the generality of the conjugate assessment by using pictures of people to examine more subtle preferences.…”