Sample First versus Comparison First Stimulus Presentations: Preliminary Findings for Two Individuals with Autism

Abstract

The current study was a replication of Petursdottir and Aguilar (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 58-68, 2016). Two different stimulus presentations were evaluated during auditory-visual discrimination training. A sample-first procedure, in which the sample stimulus was presented before the comparison stimuli, was compared to a comparison-first procedure, in which the sample presentation was presented after the comparison stimuli. The results indicated that both participants learned more quickly in the comparison-first condition, a finding that differed from Petursdottir and Aguilar (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 58-68, 2016).

Further examination of the effects of order of stimulus presentation on receptive discrimination

“…Additionally, the experimenters included a differential observing response (DOR) to both conditions for one participant (auditory stimulus presented every 2 s until the participant echoed the word). Results of Vedora et al (2019) showed that both participants reached the mastery criterion more quickly in the comparison-first condition, which differs from the results reported by Petursdottir and Aguilar. Cubicciotti et al (2019) further evaluated the effect of stimulus presentation formats during AVCD training during DTT by evaluating the effects of sample-first, comparison-first, sample-first with re-presentation, and simultaneous presentation on the rate of acquisition of AVCD with three children with ASD.…”

“…Their results were consistent with Petursdottir and Aguilar in that quicker mastery was obtained in four of seven evaluations with the samplefirst condition compared to the comparison-first condition. Vedora et al (2019) extended Petursdottir and Aguilar (2016) by evaluating sample-first and comparison-first stimulus presentation arrangements in more typical discrete-trial teaching (DTT) formats with adolescent boys diagnosed with ASD. Specifically, Vedora et al (2019) taught AVCD (flowers and flags) in a DTT teaching format that included prompting and prompt fading (i.e., progressive time delay), differential reinforcement, and errorcorrection in a table-top format.…”

“…Vedora et al (2019) extended Petursdottir and Aguilar (2016) by evaluating sample-first and comparison-first stimulus presentation arrangements in more typical discrete-trial teaching (DTT) formats with adolescent boys diagnosed with ASD. Specifically, Vedora et al (2019) taught AVCD (flowers and flags) in a DTT teaching format that included prompting and prompt fading (i.e., progressive time delay), differential reinforcement, and errorcorrection in a table-top format. Intervention sessions for both sample-first and comparison-first conditions included three training sessions during which the experimenter provided an immediate prompt (i.e., 0-s delay) followed by a progressive time delay (0-4 s).…”

“…Cubicciotti et al (2019) further evaluated the effect of stimulus presentation formats during AVCD training during DTT by evaluating the effects of sample-first, comparison-first, sample-first with re-presentation, and simultaneous presentation on the rate of acquisition of AVCD with three children with ASD. The procedures for the sample-first and comparison-first conditions were similar to those described by Vedora et al (2019) with the following exceptions: a trial-initiation response was required (i.e., participants touched a paper and tacted the color of the paper prior to starting the session), DOR was not implemented for any participant, and differential reinforcement was not initiated until 50% unprompted responses were correct. Error correction for incorrect responding prior to differential reinforcement consisted of a representation of the trial, a modeled correct response, and 5 s for the participant to respond.…”

“…During the simultaneous presentation condition, the experimenter presented the auditory stimulus and the comparison stimuli simultaneously. Similar to Vedora et al (2019), an initial 0-s prompt delay was used for training sessions across all conditions. A 5-s prompt delay and differential reinforcement for independent correct responses were introduced following 100% correct prompted responses following the 0-s model prompt.…”