2019
DOI: 10.1002/jaba.554
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Further investigation of increasing vocalizations of children with autism with a speech‐generating device

Abstract: We replicated and extended the findings of Gervarter et al. (2016) by using prompting and reinforcement to produce increased vocal speech with 3 young children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who used a speech generating device (SGD). We extended Gervarter et al. by adopting a more robust experimental design, conducting session-by-session preference assessments, and measuring the emergence of novel vocalizations. The frequency of vocalizations increased for all 3 participants after the introducti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(25 reference statements)
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, latency has been used to monitor the time elapsed from the presentation of an instruction to the initiation of a relevant response (Koegel et al, 2010). Frequency, defined as the total number of times a behavior occurs (Kubina & Lin, 2008), is also widely used in educational settings (Bishop et al, 2020). Frequency provides information on how often target responses are met being a critical outcome for self-paced and fluency-based teaching-learning paradigms (Kubina & Morrison, 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, latency has been used to monitor the time elapsed from the presentation of an instruction to the initiation of a relevant response (Koegel et al, 2010). Frequency, defined as the total number of times a behavior occurs (Kubina & Lin, 2008), is also widely used in educational settings (Bishop et al, 2020). Frequency provides information on how often target responses are met being a critical outcome for self-paced and fluency-based teaching-learning paradigms (Kubina & Morrison, 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experiment 2 replicated the results of DeRosa et al (2015) and Fisher et al (2018) by showing more target responding and greater EO exposure in the FCT‐pretraining condition in which the experimenter trained a response that could not be physically guided (i.e., the vocal FCR) compared to a response that the experimenter could reliably occasion (i.e., the card FCR). The experimenter then implemented a set of transition procedures that manipulated response effort (i.e., vocal response complexity) and EO exposure (i.e., response restriction and prompt delays) with the goal of establishing closer approximations of the terminal vocal FCR while controlling and minimizing EO exposure and thus, target responding (see Bishop et al, 2020 and Gevarter et al, 2016 for related but different approaches for transitioning to a novel mand in the absence of problem behavior or its surrogate). These procedures resulted in low rates of target responding as the topography of the FCR transitioned from a card FCR to a terminal vocal FCR.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Frost and Bondy (2002) recommended incorporating a delay to reinforcement in Phase IV, but do not provide guidance if vocalizations do not occur beyond this step. Several researchers have combined these two strategies, delay to reinforcement and vocal model prompts, in the context of PECS and a speechgenerating device (SGD), demonstrating notable increases in nonword vocalizations, vocal approximations, and targetword vocalizations (Bishop et al, 2019;Gevarter et al, 2016;Greenberg et al, 2014). Greenberg et al (2014) evaluated the effects of PECS training, delay to reinforcement, and vocal model prompts on speech production through a series of studies.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%