The role of signals in two variations of differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate procedures

Abstract

Differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedules are used to decrease the overall rate of, but not eliminate, a target response. Two variations of DRL, spaced-responding and full-session, exist. Preliminary comparative analyses suggest that the two schedules function differently when unsignaled. We compared response rates under these two DRL variations with and without signals. In Experiment 1, five preschool students played a game in which points were earned under DRL schedules. In some sessions, a stimulus signaled when responses would be reinforced (S+) or not reinforced (S-). In others, only an S-was present. Signals (S+/S-) facilitated and maintained responding in both types of DRL schedules. In Experiment 2, we modified the signals with five different preschoolers. Instead of an S-only, we did not present any signals. Elimination and high variability of the target response were observed with the S-only and absence of S +/S-, respectively. Signaled DRL schedules are recommended for application.

Differential reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate procedures: A systematic replication with students with autism spectrum disorder

“…Incorrect responses, such as throwing away bottle or paper items, reset the VR schedule. The "trash" receptacle had no bag or was "open" (similar to the S+ shown in Figure 1 of Becraft et al, 2018). • Extinction.…”

“…For the DRL comparison phases (second and fourth phase of each panel in Figure 1), we compared response rates in the two DRL conditions (i.e., full-session, spaced-responding) to each other, as well as to the optimal or allowable rate (i.e., 50% of responding in the last VR session of the first baseline phase hereafter referred to as baseline). 1 In keeping with Becraft et al (2018), we defined "near" optimal or allowable as between 25% and 75% reduction from baseline responding.…”

“…In addition, response rates were consistently lower in the spaced-responding DRL than in the full-session DRL for all participants. Becraft et al (2018) We also conducted a statistical comparison between the current data and data from Becraft et al (2018) to determine whether there were any differences across the samples for the percentage reduction from baseline or the percentage of reinforcers earned. We conducted two mixed analysis of variances (ANOVA) with DRL type as the within group factor and study as the between group factor.…”

“…We systematically replicated procedures described by Becraft et al (2018) to better understand the effect of DRL schedules with children with ASD. Further, because DRL schedules are typically signaled in application and Becraft et al (2018) found that signals were necessary in maintaining responding with both types of DRLs, we only evaluated signaled DRL schedules. Replications of this sort are crucial in behavioral sciences given the socalled replication crisis and will ultimately improve the application of our science (Laraway, Snycerski, Pradhan, & Huitema, 2019).…”

Temporal regulation of children with autism spectrum disorder exposed to a differential‐reinforcement‐of low‐rates schedule

“…However, when instructions were given, they accurately spaced their responses in both conditions, with a mean proportion of reinforced IRTs over .60. Becraft et al () measured DRL in children aged 4 to 5 years and they also compared temporal adjustment when a visual signal indicated the availability of the reinforcer. The results indicated that the proportions of reinforced IRTs were over .40 when the signals were present and dropped to less than .25 when they were absent.…”