The Relative Motivational Properties of Sensory and Edible Reinforcers in Teaching Autistic Children

Abstract

We compared the effects of sensory and edible reinforcers on resistance to satiation in three autistic children while learning visual discrimination tasks. Within-subject designs were used to compare a single sensory reinforcer with a single edible reinforcer and to compare multiple sensory reinforcers with multiple edibles. Results indicated that multiple sensory reinforcers maintained responding over more trials than did multiple edible reinforcers; however, the use of single sensory reinforcers and single edibles resulted in about equal numbers of trials to satiation. Both multiple and single sensory reinforcers produced higher percentages of correct responses than edible reinforcers. The findings are discussed in terms of the advantages of sensory reinforcers in teaching autistic children.

Self‐stimulatory Behavior and Perceptual Reinforcement

“…Some of the findings with autistic children include the following: Frankel, Freeman, Ritvo, Chikami, and Carr (1976) found that a flickering light functioned as a reinforcer for lever pulls and Freeman, Frankel, and showed that rocking in an automated rocking chair reinforced button presses. Rincover, Newsom, Lovaas, and Koegel (1977) Rincover and Newsom (1985) directly compared the reinforcing effects of edible and perceptual reinforcers and found that multiple (varied) perceptual reinforcers maintained responding on classroom tasks over more trials than did multiple edible reinforcers. They also addressed the conceptual issue that, although all reinforcers provide sensory or perceptual stimulation, it is nevertheless useful to retain sensory or perceptual reinforcement as a distinct term because such reinforcers have some unique properties that distinguish these stimuli from edibles, praise, etc.…”

“…As Hung (1978) noted, "the controlled use of self-stimulation as reinforcement points to the possibility of enlarging the reinforcement repertoire employed in the treatment of autistic children" (p. 365). Similarly, more extensive assessment of the usefulness of extrinsic perceptual reinforcers for teaching alternative behaviors is warranted (Murphy et al, 1986;Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985;Rincover & Newsom, 1985). Finally, a major avenue of clinical control yet to be fully explored may consist of changing the form of an individual's self-stimulatory behavior from motor forms to higher, more verbal or conceptual forms that begin to approximate normal behaviors, as suggested by Epstein et al (1985).…”

Evaluating Preschool Children's Preferences for Motivational Systems During Instruction

“…First, reinforcers have been embedded within the task itself (Essa, 2003;Herr & Libby, 1990;Mayesky, 1998). Second, reinforcers have been delivered following completion of the task (Daly, Martens, Hamler, Dool, & Eckert, 1999;Freeland & Noell, 1999;Rincover & Newsom, 1985). The relative efficacy of embedded and sequential reinforcement has been evaluated during skills training with adults with severe disabilities (Thompson & Iwata, 2000) and interventions aimed at increasing children's consumption of nonpreferred foods (Kern & Marder, 1996).…”

Computerized Assessment of Preference for Severely Handicapped Individuals

“…The limited response repertoires of individuals with severe handicaps often result in unreliable assumptions about their preferences (Rincover & Newsom, 1985;Wacker, Berg, Wiggins, Muldoon, & Cavanaugh, 1985). Therefore, it is important to The author thanks the students, teachers, aides, and building coordinator at Hawthorne Elementary School, Lincoln, Nebraska, for their cooperation and participation; Robert Tice and Paul Absalon for their technical assistance in the development of the computer program that was vital to this investigation; and Pat Mirenda and Kathy Garrett for their critical review of the manuscript.…”