Reducing Stimulus Overselectivity Through an Increased Observing‐response Requirement

Abstract

An adult with autism and a mild intellectual disability participated in a 0-s delayed matching-tosample task. In each trial, two sample stimuli were presented together until the participant completed an observing-response requirement consisting of 1 or 10 mouse clicks in the baseline and experimental phases, respectively. One of the two sample stimuli then appeared randomly as a comparison stimulus (S+), along with two other comparison stimuli (S2). Higher levels of correct responding occurred under the larger observing-response requirement, and the proportion of errors related to one of the two sample stimuli decreased. Thus, stimulus overselectivity was reduced without requiring differential observing responses.

Blocking of Stimulus Control in Children with Autism

“…Whether problems of restricted stimulus control are called stimulus overselectivity, differences in stimulus salience, selective attention, overshadowing, or blocking, the key to solving the problem, we presume, lies in changing the contingencies. It is fortunate that stimulus overselectivity and blocking may be reduced by teaching an overt precurrent ("observing") response to the S + (Doughty & Hopkins, 2011), as well as by teaching conditional discrimination from the beginning of a procedure, rather than following a simple discrimination (Green, 2001). Moreover, Farber et al (2017) suggested that differential observing responses (e.g., different tacts to sample stimuli) during matching-to-sample resulted in less overselectivity than nondifferential observing responses, where the response to the sample is the same on every trial, in children with autism (e.g., Reed, Altweck, Broomfield, Simpson, & McHugh, 2012).…”

Reducing overselective stimulus control with differential observing responses

“…Another research possibility is to compare the DOR approach to one that increases the sample stimulus display duration (and thus the opportunity for observing) by increasing the number of nondifferential observing responses on each trial. For example, Doughty and Hopkins () compared 1 versus 10 nondifferential observing responses per trial on a two‐sample delayed matching task with an adult with autism. The observing responses were mouse clicks over the sample.…”

Stimulus overselectivity: Empirical basis and diagnostic methods.

“…Diagnostic for irrelevant feature control. In targeting a discrimination serving responses during observational trials (Doughty & Hopkins, 2011;Dube & McIlvane, 1999;Walpole, et al, 2007).…”