Len Levin, Ph.D. Kara Lee, M.A., BCBA Jessica Ann Korneder, M.A., BCBA Tiffany Bauer, M.A., BCBA

transcript

ACQUISITION OF SPONTANEOUS EYE CONTACT DURING TEACHING INTERACTIONS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SHAPING TECHNIQUES WITHOUT PROMPTS

Len Levin, Ph.D.Kara Lee, M.A., BCBA

Jessica Ann Korneder, M.A., BCBATiffany Bauer, M.A., BCBA

Melissa L. Evans, M.S.

Coyne and Associates

Introduction

Coyne & Associates - 2009

Deficits in visual attending/eye contact is a commonly reported characteristic of Autistic Disorder (DSM-IV, 2000)

Prompting and prompt-fading strategies in response to a vocal SD (“Look at me” or calling child’s name) are commonly used techniques to ameliorate deficit (Foxx, 1977; Lovaas, 1981)

Introduction

In our treatment and education program, spontaneous eye contact (SEC) is a pre-requisite for Discrete-Trial Teaching interactions

Usually implemented during initial weeks of early intervention

Relies on SHAPING/DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT rather than prompting and prompt-fading

Introduction

Learners in our program learn to initiate eye contact with the instructor whenever there is a pause in the teaching interaction: Within 5 seconds of consuming reinforcer Within 5 seconds of responding to an

instruction

Purpose

Experiment 1 To demonstrate that the initial step of

shaping protocol teaches the learner to initiate eye contact with instructor within 5 seconds of termination of preferred activity

Experiment 2 To demonstrate that the subsequent steps

of the protocol teach the learner to continually “check in” with the instructor each time the learner performs a response

Experiment 1

PARTICIPANTS Six children

4 boys, 2 girls Age range = 24 to 36 months At risk for autism Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention

Experiment 1

RESEARCH DESIGN Multiple Baseline Across Participants Two demonstrations:

San Diego consumers Orange County consumers

Experiment 1

BASELINE PROCEDURE

1. Child seated next to or across from instructor

2. Child watching portable DVD player 3. Instructor turns off DVD and records

whether or not child initiates eye contact within 5 seconds

4. Instructor waits an additional 5 seconds (i.e., total of 10 seconds) before re-starting DVD player.

Experiment 1

INTERVENTION PROCEDURE1. Child seated next to or across from

instructor2. Child watching portable DVD player3. Instructor turns off DVD player and

records whether or not child initiates eye contact within 5 seconds

4. Instructor turns on DVD when child makes eye contact

Experiment 1

INTERVENTION PROCEDURE Child can be prompted to remain seated,

to sit with appropriate posture, or to place hands down on table, but direct prompting of eye contact was not implemented

Typically, reinforced responses during initial stage of implementation of shaping procedure are not as “clean” as the terminal response

Experiment 1

INTERVENTION PROCEDUREDifferential Reinforcement to decrease

latency Incorrect Response ( > 5 seconds)

access DVD for 10 - 30 seconds Correct Response ( ≤ 5 seconds)

access DVD for 40 - 60 seconds

Shaping Eye Contact

ResultsSan Diego

ResultsOrange County

Experiment 2

PARTICIPANTS Six children, all boys Age range = 24 to 36 months At risk for autism Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention Different participants than Experiment 1

although all Experiment 2 participants received Experiment 1 intervention before participation in Experiment 2

Experiment 2

RESEARCH DESIGNChanging criterion design:

The criterion for reinforcement changed across conditions in that the participant was required to respond to increasingly more high-probability requests and establish eye contact after each response before the reinforcer (i.e., access to DVD) was delivered

Experiment 2

Condition 1 Procedure (1 high-p) 1. Child seated next to or across from instructor2. Child watching portable DVD player3. Instructor turns off DVD player and records

whether or not child initiated eye contact within 5 seconds

4. When child establishes eye contact, instructor delivers high-p request; instructor records whether or not child establishes eye contact within 5 seconds of performing response

Yields 2 opportunities per trial

Condition 1

Experiment 2

Condition 2 Procedure (2 high-p)

2. Child watching portable DVD player

3. Instructor turns off DVD player and records whether or not child initiated eye contact within 5 seconds

5. When child establishes eye contact, instructor delivers second high-p request; instructor records whether or not child establishes eye contact within 5 seconds of performing second response

2 yields 3 opportunities per trial

Condition 2

Experiment 2

Condition 3 Procedure (3 high-p)

2. Child watching portable DVD player

3. Instructor turns off DVD player and records whether or not child initiated eye contact within 5 seconds

5. When child establishes eye contact, instructor delivers second high-p request; instructor records whether or not child establishes eye contact within 5 seconds of performing second response

6. When child establishes eye contact, instructor delivers third high-p request; instructor records whether or not child establishes eye contact within 5 seconds of performing third response

Condition 3 yields four opportunities per trial

Experiment 2

During all conditions, instructor implements differential reinforcement for latency of eye contact after FINAL OPPORTUNITY of trial

Incorrect Response ( > 5 seconds)

Access to DVD for 10 - 30 seconds

Correct Response ( ≤ 5 seconds)

Access to DVD for 40 - 60 seconds

Experiment 2

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS/CHANGING CRITERION

During all conditions, one data point = 5 trials

With number of trials remaining constant, number of opportunities per data point change systematically across conditions

CONDITION 1 = 2 Opportunities per trial = 10 per data point

Results

Discussion - Clinical Practice

In our treatment and education program, spontaneous eye contact (SEC) is a pre-requisite for Discrete-Trial Teaching interactions

The SEC skill acquisition program is Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 combined

Is incorporated into all Discrete-Trial Teaching and maintained via intermittent schedule of reinforcement

SEC in Discrete Trial Teaching

Discussion

In our experience, the protocol described produces better outcomes than traditional, SD - driven approach (e.g., “Look at me”)

However, this project did not directly compare efficacy of different strategies to promote eye contact

Future research should assess comparative efficacy of different approaches

Discussion

One could conceptualize current approach as relying exclusively on Motivating Operations rather than “instructional” discriminative stimuli

In this way, protocol is analogous to mand training

Discussion

Caregivers frequently report increased spontaneous eye contact in the natural setting after mastery of SEC program in our sessions, especially during manding situations

This phenomenon needs to be verified empirically, but if it is true, one could conceptualize that the current protocol facilitates the initiation of eye contact as a functional, “over-generalized” mand

Discussion

We speculate that the critical component of the reinforcer (i.e., access to DVD) is that instructor controls onset and offset

If true, then food reinforcers may not be optimal for shaping this skill

This should be examined in future studies

Discussion

Does spontaneous eye contact during teaching interactions, as produced by the protocol described, impact the rate of skill acquisition or efficiency of teaching?

Len Levin, Ph.D. Kara Lee, M.A., BCBA Jessica Ann Korneder, M.A., BCBA Tiffany Bauer, M.A., BCBA

Documents