The use of picture prompts and prompt delay to teach receptive labeling

Abstract

The current study extended research on picture prompts by using them with a progressive prompt delay to teach receptive labeling of pictures to 2 teenagers with autism. The procedure differed from prior research because the auditory stimulus was not presented or was presented only once during the picture-prompt condition. The results indicated that the combination of picture prompts and prompt delay was effective, although 1 participant required a procedural modification.

The establishment of auditory–visual equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

“…Although simultaneous MTS is widely used when teaching auditory–visual conditional (i.e., listener behavior) relations to children with autism (Bao et al, 2017; Dixon et al, 2017; Kobari‐Wright & Miguel, 2014; McLay et al, 2013; Vedora & Barry, 2016), several prerequisite skills may be at play (Green, 2001; Green & Saunders, 1998). For instance, the participant must differentially respond to a) comparisons that are discriminative (S D ) and nondiscriminative (S‐delta) for reinforcement within a trial (i.e., simple simultaneous discrimination) and, b) each sample across trials (i.e., simple successive discriminations).…”

An Evaluation of Differential Observing Responses During Receptive Label Training

“…Although the differential effects were not replicated in Roger's second comparison, it is possible that this finding has implications for clinicians. Roger was exposed to the DOR during training on three sets of stimuli in a prior study (Vedora & Barry, 2016) and in the first comparison of the current study; thus, it may have been the repeated exposure to the DOR that enhanced control by the sample stimuli in the no-DOR condition of the second comparison. Additional research is needed to determine if repeated exposure to the DOR improves performance in the absence of the DOR during receptive label training.…”

“…Roger communicated with an augmentative communication device and manded for several preferred items with vocal approximations. Roger participated in a previous study (Vedora & Barry, 2016) in which picture prompts were used to teach receptive labeling. Dillon was a 21-year-old male diagnosed with Down syndrome.…”

“…The results were mixed across experiments but provided tentative support for the use of an echoic response as a DOR during an error correction procedure. Vedora and Barry (2016) demonstrated that picture prompts used with a prompt delay were effective at teaching receptive labeling for two teenagers with autism. Picture prompts used during receptive label training may be effective as they require the learner to discriminate the relevant features of the positive comparison (Carp, Peterson, Arkel, Petursdottir, & Ingvarsson, 2012).…”

Establishing initial auditory‐visual conditional discriminations and emergence of initial tacts in young children with autism spectrum disorder

“…Third, we used a progressively delayed prompting procedure to transfer stimulus control from the controlling prompt to each sample stimulus because it often produces relatively rapid acquisition with few errors and relatively low levels of problem behavior (Green, 2001;Grow & LeBlanc, 2013;Sidman & Stoddard, 1967;Touchette, 1971;Walker, 2008;Weeks & Gaylord-Ross, 1981). Fourth, we selected an identity-match prompt (i.e., a picture prompt that is identical to the correct comparison stimulus) as the controlling prompt, because it ensures that the individual discriminates the correct comparison stimulus from the other comparison stimuli, and research has shown it to be more effective than a point prompt (Carp et al, 2012;Fisher et al, 2007;Jones & Zarcone, 2014;Vedora & Barry, 2016). Fifth, we included an error-correction procedure that involved repeating trials on which the participant emitted an error until the participant emitted an independent correct response for that trial (e.g., Schumaker & Sherman, 1970).…”