Individual Patterns of Looking and Listening Preferences among Learning Disabled and Normal Children

Abstract

Preferences for looking and listening among 12 learning disabled and 12 normal children were analyzed by individually and directly recording the rates at which each child worked for the opportunity to look at and listen to a sound movie whose audio and visual channels were programed through two conjugate programers. Patterns of looking and listening preference were found and representative response records of some of these patterns are presented. Thirty-three percent of the children preferred to look and listen simultaneously; 37 percent would look but not always listen. No child was found who would listen but not look, while several of the learning disabled children would look but not listen. The three different conjugate procedures used in this study differed in their reliability and sensitivity to preferences and deficits.

Self‐stimulatory Behavior and Perceptual Reinforcement

“…Many additional studies have demonstrated a perceptual reinforcement effect in older children and adults and have extended the range of perceptual consequences found to be reinforcing and the responses susceptible to reinforcement. Response-contingent presentation of shapes, words, patterns of lights, pictures, movies, and music will all reinforce both innate and arbitrarily selected behaviors (e.g., Benton & Mefferd, 1967; Cotter, 1972;Mira, 1968;Siqueland, 1968). The relationship of this research to self-stimulatory behavior is especially dose in the case of those studies (e.g., Mira, 1968;Rovee & Rovee, 1969) that used conjugate reinforcement procedures (Lindsley, Hobika, & Etsten, 1961).…”

“…In several studies, illumination or color pattern changes contingent on various simple responses resulted in large increases in response rates in infants and preschool children (e.g., Antonitis & Barnes, 1961;Caron, 1967;Rheingold, Stanley, & Doyle, 1964;Rovee & Rovee, 1969;Stevenson & Odom, 1961). The reinforcing properties of some visual stimuli decreased over time, but small changes reinstated high rates of responding (Antonitis & Barnes, 1961 Cotter, 1972;Mira, 1968;Siqueland, 1968). The relationship of this research to self-stimulatory behavior is especially dose in the case of those studies (e.g., Mira, 1968;Rovee & Rovee, 1969) that used conjugate reinforcement procedures (Lindsley, Hobika, & Etsten, 1961).…”

“…The reinforcing properties of some visual stimuli decreased over time, but small changes reinstated high rates of responding (Antonitis & Barnes, 1961 Cotter, 1972;Mira, 1968;Siqueland, 1968). The relationship of this research to self-stimulatory behavior is especially dose in the case of those studies (e.g., Mira, 1968;Rovee & Rovee, 1969) that used conjugate reinforcement procedures (Lindsley, Hobika, & Etsten, 1961). In conjugate procedures, the frequency, intensity, or duration of the reinforcement varies directly with the rate, intensity, or duration of the response, just as the perceptual reinforcers of self-stimulatory behaviors vary directly with response characteristics.…”

Revisiting conjugate schedules

“…Since Lindsley's initial application, researchers have used conjugate preparations extensively to examine operant behavior of infants (Rovee-Collier & Capatides, 1979;Rovee-Collier & Gekoski, 1979;Weisberg & Rovee-Collier, 1998). More broadly, other studies have used conjugate schedules to examine (a) individuals' sensitivity to social stimuli presented during product advertising (Lindsley, 1962;Nathan & Wallace, 1965;Winters & Wallace, 1970;Wolf, Newman, & Winters, 1969); (b) the attending behavior of individuals in supervision or psychotherapeutic contexts (Lindsley, 1963;Nathan, 1965;Nathan, Bull, & Rossi, 1968;Nathan, Marland, & Lindsley, 1965;Nathan, Schneller, & Lindsley, 1964;Nathan, Smith, & Rossi, 1968); and (c) individuals' preferences for auditory stimulation (Lovitt, 1966;1967, 1968a, 1968bMira, 1968;1970;Morgan & Lindsley, 1966), among others (e.g., Lindsley & Conran, 1962;Lindsley, Hobika, & Etsten, 1961). While these researchers used conjugate schedules in their preparations to examine other phenomena as independent variables, the studies did not examine conjugate reinforcement per se.…”

An Analysis of Auditory Attending Skills

“…Perhaps the most significant finding of this study was that auditory attending ability, as measured in the AAT, does not appear to be related to sex, race, or socioeconomic class. Although it appears from various studies that children may have a preferred modality (Beery 1967, Birch & Belmont 1964, 1965, Blank 1968, Mira 1968), the work of Deutsch (1964), Chall (1967), deHirsch, Jansky, and Langford (1966, Gickling and Joiner (1974), Newcomer and Goodman (1975) as well as the studies of countless other researchers, suggests that neglecting the auditory component in reading produces seriously crippled readers. Perhaps Groff (1975) spirit.…”