Behavioral Momentum in Computer‐presented Discriminations in Individuals With Severe Mental Retardation

Abstract

Behavioral momentum was examined in 2 individuals with severe mental retardation via withinsubject manipulations of obtained reinforcer rates. Subjects performed self-paced discrimination problems presented on a touch screen computer monitor. Two different problems, Tasks A and B, alternated in blocks of 15 trials on a multiple schedule. Reinforcers were snack foods. The reinforcement schedule for Task A was continuous (fixed-ratio 1), and the schedule for Task B was continuous in some conditions and variable ratio in other conditions. Behavioral momentum was assessed in test sessions by prefeeding, presenting response-independent food, and making available alternatives to the tasks. When the obtained reinforcer rate for Task A was at least twice that for Task B, resistance to change was greater for Task A. When both reinforcer rates and response rates were approximately equal for the two tasks, resistance to change was approximately equal. These results are consistent with behavioral momentum effects. They extend previous findings with humans by examining momentum in self-initiated discrete-trial discrimination tasks with ratio schedules, and by isolating relative reinforcer rates as a controlling variable via within-subject manipulations.

Basing assessment and treatment of problem behavior on behavioral momentum theory: Analyses of behavioral persistence

“…The results showed consistent findings across species (e.g., Mace et al, 2010), tasks (e.g., Dube & McIvane, 2001), and behaviors (e.g., Dube, Ahearn, Lionello-DeNolf, & McIlvane, 2009). Follow-up studies have begun to further isolate specific variables related to increased behavioral persistence, such as types of disruptors (e.g., Lionello-DeNolf, Dube, & McIlvane, 2010) and distinct reinforcers (e.g., Grimes & Shull, 2001) and have begun to consider other variables such as preferences for stimuli (e.g., Berg et al, 2015).…”

Additional free reinforcers increase persistence of problem behavior in a clinical context: A partial replication of laboratory findings

“…The current results partially replicate this general finding with human subjects (e.g., Mace et al, ) from clinical populations and provide an initial extension of the findings of Ahearn et al () to behavior maintained by socially mediated reinforcement (rather than automatically maintained behavior) over a longer observation of disruption. In addition, the current study extends the work of Dube and colleagues (Dube, Mazzitelli, Lombard, & McIlvane, 2000; Dube & McIlvane, ; Dube et al, ) to clinically relevant behavior rather than arbitrary operants.…”

Reinforcer magnitude and resistance to disruption of forgetting functions and response rates

“…Greater resistance to disruption of behavior following higher rates of reinforcement has also been demonstrated across a number of species including rats, pigeons, and humans (Dube & McIlvane, 2001;Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009;Quick & Shahan, 2009), and occurs regardless of relative baseline response rates in the rich and lean components (e.g., Nevin, Tota, Torquato, & Shull, 1990;Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009), the qualitative nature of the reinforcer (e.g., food or milk; Grimes & Shull, 2001; drug or nondrug; Shahan & Burke, 2004), or the way in which reinforcers are delivered (e.g., rate or magnitude; Nevin, 1974).…”

“…A considerable amount of research has proven consistent with behavioral momentum theory, which offers a useful conceptualization for understanding reinforcement history and current behavior, including persistence of drug use (Quick & Shahan, 2009), relative relapse of responding across rich and lean contexts (Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009), and resistance to disruption of discriminations by individuals with severe mental retardation (Dube & McIlvane, 2001). Greater resistance to disruption of behavior following higher rates of reinforcement has also been demonstrated across a number of species including rats, pigeons, and humans (Dube & McIlvane, 2001;Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009;Quick & Shahan, 2009), and occurs regardless of relative baseline response rates in the rich and lean components (e.g., Nevin, Tota, Torquato, & Shull, 1990;Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009), the qualitative nature of the reinforcer (e.g., food or milk; Grimes & Shull, 2001; drug or nondrug; Shahan & Burke, 2004), or the way in which reinforcers are delivered (e.g., rate or magnitude; Nevin, 1974).…”