|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Stimulus Discrimination Difficulties
Many children with autism spectrum disorders have difficulty with
separating or discriminating between stimuli and their specific
characteristics. That is, it is at times almost an impossible task to
"tell the difference" between two targeted items, sounds, and their
defining features. The term "stimulus discrimination difficulties" has
been used to describe this phenomenon. Imagine the experience of
differentiating identical twins. It is almost impossible for one to
discriminate between the characteristics (name, facial features of each
person, etc). This difficulty influences the acquisition of language,
social and cognitive skills and many other deficit areas of individuals
with autism.
Stimulus Overselectivity
Stimulus
overselectivity is a term used to describe a phenomenon whereby a
person focuses only on a single characteristics of a stimulus or
stimulus condition while ignoring other aspects. Many individuals with
autism appear to have difficulty focusing on the relevant aspects of
information being taught. The tendency to respond to only one of many
aspects or dimensions of an object may make it difficult for an
individual with ASD to learn. For example, if a child is being taught
to differentiate between a car and an airplane, it would not be
uncommon for a child to focus on the wheels rather than the vehicle(s)
requested. In this case, the child will experience much difficulty when
trying to decide which object to give when requested.
Unequal matching of reinforcement from escape, self-stimulation and reinforcement received during learning opportunities
There is an abundance of research that describes the effects of self-stimulation on learning. Self-stimulation is an intrinsically (primary) motivating behavior that is controlled by the child. The child determines when they are going to engage in the behavior and when they stop engaging in the self-stimulatory behavior. When one compares the secondary reinforcing value that a child receives from daily interactions with others, the social reinforcement given for completing work or the variable social reinforcement that is naturally occurring in the environment, there is no comparison. The intrinsic (primary) reinforcement received from self-stimulation is more powerful than the secondary social reinforcement received for learning tasks.
The more reinforcement a person receives for responding, the
more likely they are to perform that response again. Those responses or
activities associated with a high rate of reinforcement and a low
amount of effort required to obtain reinforcement will be preferred.
Likewise, those responses or activities associated with low
reinforcement and high effort will not be preferred activities. For
example, if a child is quickly given five M&M's for playing with a
doll house and given one M&M over time for playing with a car, it
highly predictable that the child will play with the doll house more
than playing with the car. The reinforcing value received is UNEQUALLY
matched in the quantity of reinforcers given and the schedule in which
it was given. If one wanted to match the reinforcing value between the
car and the doll house, the child should receive the same amount of
M&M's on the same schedule for each toy. If one wanted to increase
the probability that the child would play with the car, the child
should receive at least five M&M's or more on a much frequent
schedule. This concept is known as the matching law and is very
valuable in assessing motivating and reinforcing factors associated
with learning, self stimulation and escape from tasks. If work tasks
can be made as reinforcing and less effortful than escape or
self-stimulatory behaviors, work may be met not with protest, but with
enthusiasm.
» Back To Top
Absence of Contingent Conditions and Learning
Learning
normally depends on a clear relationship between response and
reinforcement. This relationship is a "contingent relationship" or "a
contingent condition". Normally, if a contingency is not present - if
responding has no effect on whether reinforcement is obtained, then no
learning occurs. Rather, what does occur in the natural environment is
a high degree of contiguity of responses and reinforcers, not their
contingency.
Example 1: A child is asked to get their shoes and the child goes to the window and then gets their shoes. When the child returns they are praised for completing the task. In this case, it is unclear what is being reinforced. Is the child being reinforced for going to the window, getting his shoes or both? This example lacks a clear contingency between the reinforcer and the desired behavioral response.
Example 2: A child is instructed to sit down for dinner. The child walks over to the table and stands up. The child is praised for coming to the table, but the desired behavior of sitting down did not occur. As a potential result, the child learns that coming to the table is acceptable and reinforced. Here again, the situation lacks a clear connection between the desired behavior and the reinforcer available.
In the "typical" living environment, contingent conditions may
be few and far between. However, it is important to create learning
situations where the relationship between the desired behavioral
response and the potential reinforcer is clear.
» Back To Top
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Website Supported by NY IT Consultant