Effects of stimulus presentation order during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training for children with autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

Children with autism spectrum disorder are typically taught conditional discriminations using a match-to-sample arrangement. Consideration should be given to the temporal order in which antecedent stimuli (the sample and comparison stimuli) are presented during match-to-sample trials, as various arrangements have been used in the extant literature. The purpose of the current study was to compare the effects of four stimulus presentation orders on the acquisition of auditory-visual conditional discriminations. The study included participants from a clinically relevant population (three children with autism spectrum disorder), employed clinically relevant teaching procedures, and included two presentation formats not included in previous comparison evaluations (simultaneous and sample-first with re-presentation conditions). Results were found to be learner-specific; that is, a different stimulus presentation format was most efficient for each participant. We provide suggestions to evaluate stimulus control topographies and enhance experimental control in match-to-sample arrangements.

Assessment to identify learner‐specific prompt and prompt‐fading procedures for children with autism spectrum disorder

“…We conducted up to 15 sessions per day, in a random without replacement order, at least 10 min apart, and up to 5 days per week based on the experimenter and participant's availability. The experimenter presented the sample and comparison stimuli using a comparison‐first arrangement (Cubicciotti et al, ). The experimenter required the participant to touch the condition‐specific stimulus binder and tact the condition‐correlated color before each session.…”

“…Early intensive behavioral intervention programs commonly target AVCDs (Cubicciotti, Vladescu, Reeve, Carroll, & Schnell, ; Schneider, Devine, Aguilar, & Petursdottir, ). This is not surprising considering many skills require individuals to differentially respond to the verbal behavior of others.…”

Establishing initial auditory‐visual conditional discriminations and emergence of initial tacts in young children with autism spectrum disorder

“…Petursdottir and Aguilar (2016) found faster acquisition when they presented the sample stimulus prior to the comparison stimuli with learners who showed typical development. Other research has found the samplefirst procedure to be more effective for the majority of participants (Cubicciotti, Vladescu, Reeve, Carroll, & Schnell, 2018;Schneider, Devine, Aguilar, & Pettursdottir, 2018); however, the participants in each of these studies did not meet our criteria for novice learners relative to acquisition of auditory-visual conditional discriminations. Future research should compare a sample-first procedure with the comparison-first procedure with novice learners while holding other aspects of the treatment package constant.…”

The effects of procedural integrity errors during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training: A preliminary investigation

“…The experimenter presented antecedent stimuli using a comparison‐first arrangement wherein she revealed the comparison array, waited 3 s, and then presented the sample stimulus (Cubiciotti, Vladescu, Reeve, Carrol, & Schnell, ). The participant had 5 s to respond.…”