No abstract

Differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedules are used to decrease the overall rate of, but not eliminate, a target response. Two variations of DRL, spaced-responding and full-session, exist. Preliminary comparative analyses suggest that the two schedules function differently when unsignaled. We compared response rates under these two DRL variations with and without signals. In Experiment 1, five preschool students played a game in which points were earned under DRL schedules. In some sessions, a stimulus signaled when responses would be reinforced (S+) or not reinforced (S-). In others, only an S-was present. Signals (S+/S-) facilitated and maintained responding in both types of DRL schedules. In Experiment 2, we modified the signals with five different preschoolers. Instead of an S-only, we did not present any signals. Elimination and high variability of the target response were observed with the S-only and absence of S +/S-, respectively. Signaled DRL schedules are recommended for application.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that infants spend supervised time in the prone (tummy) position to foster motor development and prevent cranial deformities. However, infants may not tolerate the position, and consequently, caregivers may avoid placing their infants in the prone position. The AAP recommends that caregivers provide toys or interaction during tummy time. We evaluated the individual and combined effects of a play mat and experimenter interaction on negative vocalizations and head elevation during tummy time-positive effects were limited. Next, we evaluated a parent-led intervention wherein mothers interacted with their infants, using a toy, while lying chest-to-chest. This intervention was associated with a reduction in negative vocalizations and an increase in head elevation for the majority of infants. Additionally, mothers rated the effectiveness of the parent-led intervention more favorably than the experimenter-led intervention, suggesting the effects of the parent-led intervention were also socially valid.

Crying has yet to be examined systematically in isolation from other problem behavior, such as aggression or tantrums, during functional analyses (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Identification of variables that may maintain crying is especially important for populations who are susceptible to psychiatric interventions (e.g., individuals who have intellectual disabilities and communication deficits). The current study extended functional analysis methodology to crying with an adolescent boy who had been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. Results suggested that crying was maintained by caregiver attention delivered in a sympathetic manner.