Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation

Abstract

Researchers used a conjugate preparation to evaluate how response force changed based on participants' preferences for visual stimuli. First, researchers used a verbal preference assessment to evaluate each participant's preference for viewing for five object categories of visual stimuli; this process identified high preference (HP) stimuli and low preference stimuli for most participants. Thereafter, researchers exposed each participant to the five stimulus categories in a randomized order while using a force dynamometer to measure their response force to increase visual clarity of each stimulus. Results indicate the majority of participants' HP stimuli corresponded to the stimulus category for which they exerted the highest mean force. These preliminary findings suggest conjugate preparations involving response force may provide another option for measuring the relative value of some stimulus events.

The multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement preference assessment tool and its predictive validity

“…Despite the difference between past work and the current study, our reinforcer assessment proved effective at identifying reinforcers for five of seven participants. Moreover, we identified the reinforcing effects of stimuli in a relatively short duration (i.e., 5 min), and the participants required minimal instruction-both benefits that have been previously reported (Davis et al, 2021;Falligant et al, 2018;MacAleese et al, 2015).…”

“…Second, we evaluated the reinforcing effects of videos by manipulating their visual clarity and volume. Prior demonstrations have evaluated preference and reinforcing effects of stimuli by systematically manipulating the visual clarity of pictures (Davis et al, 2021;MacAleese et al, 2015) or the auditory component of videos (Falligant et al, 2018(Falligant et al, , 2020. Third, we arranged the reinforcer assessments in a concurrent-chains format, which allowed participants the opportunity to choose from three video options (initial link) and then engage in responses that modulated each video's output (clarity and volume) throughout the terminal link.…”

“…Our study also contributes to the body of literature related to the use of conjugate schedules to identify reinforcers. First, MacAleese et al (2015), Falligant et al (2018, 2020), and Davis et al (2021) recently evaluated different aspects of stimuli (e.g., fluctuations in picture quality or volume) and response dimensions (e.g., force, rate) using conjugate schedules with college‐age students. We extended this work by evaluating the reinforcing effects of videos with a different population—children with and without reported disabilities.…”

“…More recently, Davis et al (2021) conducted stimulus preference assessments for pictures and compared the rank order of preferences that were derived from two assessment procedures. Fifty‐four undergraduate college students completed a vocal‐verbal MSWO for five arbitrarily selected picture categories (e.g., monkeys, street art, desk chairs).…”

Multiple schedules of conjugate reinforcement and extinction: A translational model for assessing automatically reinforced behavior

“…Rapp argued that the ideal simulation for automatically reinforced behavior is a translational preparation with a conjugate schedule of reinforcement. Researchers have since taken advantage of the observation by using conjugate schedules to evaluate translational questions pertaining to stimulus preference (Curiel et al, 2024;Davis et al, 2021;MacAleese et al, 2015) and response force during extinction (e.g., Falligant et al, 2018Falligant et al, , 2020.…”