Operant Learning and Habituation in Infants

1. Operant Learning and Habituation in Infants Catherine Taylor-Santa Caldwell College Behavior Analysis of Child Development October 2012

2. Overview • Review • Discussion: Malcuit and Pomerleau’s chapter • Studies • Why the “cognitive revolution”? • Operant chamber model • Research • Kim Kraebel Research • Thoughts

3. What We Know • Habituation • US presented rapidity until decrease in UR • Youtubevideo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlilZh60qdA&feature=channel&list=UL) • Operant Conditioning • Form of learning in which a voluntary response is strengthened or weakened, depending on the consequences which follow the behavior • Infants • Affected their environment • Affected by the effects their actions bring

4. Studying Perceptual Development • Habituation Method • Conditioning Method • Electrode Recording Method (Foley, 2006)

5. Chapter 4Operant Learning and Habituation in InfantsMalcuit & Pomerleau (1996)

6. Sucking Operant Studies • Papousek (1959) • Infant • Cheek touch  Rooting reflex 25% • Cheek touch  Rooting  Ingestion of milk • Frequency of rooting reflex increased • Siqueland & Lipsitt (1966) • Newborns • Auditory Sd & stroke  Head turn  Sugar water • Other auditory stimuli & stroke  No head turn

7. Sucking Operant Studies • Siqueland & DeLucia (1969) • 4 months old • Conjugate reinforcement • High amplitude sucking (HAS)  Bright visual stimulus • Novel stimulus  HAS • Moon & Fifer (1990) • 2 days old • Sd auditory string  Sucking  Mom’s voice • Sdelta auditory string  Sucking  Silence

8. Vocalization Operant Study • Rheingold et al. (1959) • 3 months old • Spontaneous vocalizations  Social stimuli • Increased vocalizations

9. Head and Limb Movement Operant Studies • Meltzoff & Kuhl (1989) • 4 months old + • Change auditory stimulus  Head turn  Puppets • Rovee-Collier and colleagues • Infants • Conjugate reinforcement • Infant kicks  Mobile moves • 3 min baseline/retention  9 min acquisition  3 min immediate retention test/extinction • Sessions conducted 1 day+ apart

10. Visual Fixation Operant/Habitation Studies • Infants • Visual stimulus Infant gaze  Continued visual stimulus Interesting • Bornstein and Sigmand (1986) & Slater (1997) indicated infants who • Habituate more rapidly • Have short looking time • Greater preference for novelty • Higher IQ’s later

11. So… Could difficulties involving habituation represent a sign of or even predict a developmental delay? Maybe…But I was not able to find any research specifically on this. Toddlers with elevated autism symptoms showed slowed habituation to faces (Webb et al., 2010)

12. Operant Reinforcement’s Control • Some infant behaviors • Sucking • Vocalizations • Head & limb movements • Visual fixations • Important implications • Generality of operant reinforcement principles • Infant behaviors could be reinforced by changes behavior brings in environment

13. Ecological Reinforcers • A type of automatic reinforcer in which the stimulus changes produced by the behavior increase the frequency of that behavior under similar circumstances. (Vaughan & Michael, 1982) • These reinforcers have a short life. Unlike • Primary reinforcers • Secondary reinforcers • Modification of stimulus or novel stimulus brings back rate of responding • Most potent means to study behaviors of developing children

14. Why Did the Majority Go Cognitive? Experiments demonstrate generality of the principles and efficacy of techniques of operant learning…so why the “cognitive revolution”? • Behavior analysts stuck on discrepancies between human and animals • Principle characteristic of ecological reinforcers • Convenient qualities • Seen as indicators • Operant procedure • Easy to implement • Variety of questions on early cognitive processes answered

15. Operant Chamber Vs. Human Learning • Operant research in human learning follow operant chamber model • Relevant factors may not be effectively isolated VS. VS. VS. Game-like Behavior Lever Press Ecological Reinforcer Primary Reinforcer Freedom Controlled Environment

16. Human Operant Experiments Compatible with Operant Chamber Model Baron et al. (1991) • Experimental variable are imposed long enough to manifest their effects • Behavior is studied as a steady state • Subjects are matched Too Short Obsolete

17. More Issues • For many laboratories, learning contexts analyze in terms of exploration and problem-solving • Response rates not the most appropriate way to assess if learning has taken place

18. In summery • Operant chamber model to study infant learning is not adequate with ecological reinforcers • Not relevant within context of problem-solving analysis of operant behavior • Rate measure of operant behaviors do not appear most appropriate way to asses learning

19. Suggestions • Pomerleau et al. (1992) • Single-subject designs • “Non-perfect” contingency • Measures • Duration • % of opportunities • Latency measures • More relevant stimuli

20. Relevant Stimuli Schedules • Voltair, Gewirtz,& Pelaez (2005) • Synchronous reinforcement- reinforcing stimulus provided as long as individual engages in the behavior • Conjugate reinforcement - some property of a reinforcing stimulus varies proportional to a specific response attribute (e.g., rate, amplitude)

21. Functional analysis of infant visual attention (Malcuit et al., 1988) Stimulus elicits head turn and gaze orientation • Habituation • Repeated presentations • Allow infant to allocate behavioral resources to stimuli of greater relevance • Signal • Followed by appearance of attractive stimulus • Stimulus has a functional value • Behavior will ceases when • Stimulus loses its reinforcing value • Another behavior becomes more probable

22. Complex Stimuli Maintain Infant Attention Longer • This idea was met with resistance • Informational processing model: Contains more information to be processed • Functional model: More reinforcing

23. Malcuit, Bastien& Pomerleau(1996) • Sort out the effect of 2 functional values of stimuli on orienting response elicitation • Forty eight 4-month-olds • Three conditions • 12 presentations 2s visual stimulus • 12 presentations 2s visual stimulus accompanied by another event • Visual stimulus on synchronous schedule • Visual stimuli • 4x4 checkerboard pattern • 8x8 checkerboard pattern • 1st pattern 2nd 2 test trials  1st 2 dishabituation trials

29. Implications • Suggest the importance of taking into account the functional value of stimuli when analyzing infant attention • Stimulus complexity is indeed a factor but will most likely be overshadowed by a stimulus with a signaling function

30. Malcuit & Pomerleau2nd Study Mentioned • Looked at the respondent dimension of orienting response • Separate respondent and operantprocess • Respondent- Stimulus elicits head turn • Operant- Head turn makes stimulus appear • 4 groups of 16 • 4 month-olds

31. Malcuit & Pomerleau2nd Study Mentioned

32. Malcuit & Pomerleau2nd Study Mentioned

33. Implications • Operant process, whether signaled or not, seems to be more potent in sustaining infant attention than • Stimulus that is always present • Astimulus whose sudden appearance triggers attention

35. Who is Dr. Kimberly Kraebel • Associate Professor of Psychology at SUNY Cortland • PhD in Experimental Psych- learning and memory • Animal models • Post-doc research at Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities in NYC • Developmental perception infants 2-9 mo • Infant and Child Studies Project • Cognition in 3 & 5 mo infants • A runner =)

37. Matching Amodal Cues Promotes Differential Expression of FacilitatedOperant Learning in 3- and 5-Month-Old Infants • Amodal- information that is not specific to an individual sensory system • Kraebel, 2009; Kraebel, 2012a & 2012b • Kraebel et al., 2004 (computer measures)

44. Results • Infants given matching redundant amodal properties (e.g., viewed cylinders while holding a cylinder) facilitated operant learning • Infants given mismatching redundant amodal properties (e.g., viewed cylinders while holding a rectangular cube)  inhibited operant learning • Why?

45. Final thoughts Are there any questions, other than is this thing glued to my head? Thanks! • Ample room for more research • Early autism detection • Multi-sensory approach

46. References • Baron, A., Perone, M., & Galizio, M. (1991). Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: Can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 95-105. • Bornstein, M. H., & Sigman, M. D. (1986). Continuity in mental development from infancy. Child Development, 57, 251-274. • Foley, H. J. (2006). Sensation & Perception. Retrieved from http://www.skidmore.edu/~hfoley/Perc14.htm • Kraebel, K. (2009, April). Matching Amodal Cues Promotes Differential Expression of Facilitated Operant Learning in 3- and 5-Month-Old Infants. Poster session presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO.

47. References • Kraebel, K. S. (2012). Redundant amodal properties facilitate operant learning in 3—month-old infants. Infant Behavior & Development, 35, 12-21. • Kraebel, K. S. (2012). Mismatching amodal redundancy inhibits operant learning in 5-month-old infants. Infant Behavior & Development, 35, 360-368. • Kraebel, K. S., Fable, J., & Gerhardstein, P. (2004). New methodology in infant operant kicking procedures: computerized stimulus control and computerized measurement of kicking. Infant Behavior & Development, 27, 1-18. • Malcuit, G., & Pomerleau, A. (1996). Operant learning and habituation in infants. In S.W. Bijou & E. Ribes (Eds.), New Directions in Behavior Development (pp. 47-72). Reno, NV: Context Press. • Malcuit, G., Pomerleau, A., Lamarre, G. (1988). Habituation and operant visual fixation: A comment on comments. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 8, 539-547.

48. References • Malcuit, G., Bastein, C., & Pomerleau, A. (1996). Habituaiton of the orienting response to stimuli of different functional values in 4-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 272-291. • Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P.K. (1989). Infants’ perception of faces and speech sounds:Challenges to developmental theory. In P.R. Zelazo & R. G. Barr (Eds.), Challenges to developmental paradigms: Implication from theory assessment and treatment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. • Moon, C., & Fifer, W. P. (1990). Syllables as signals for –day-old infants. Infant Behavior and Develpoment, 13, 377-390. • Papousek, H. (1977). The development of learning ability in infancy. In G. Nissen (Ed.), Intelligence, learning, and learning disturbances. Berlin: Spriner-Verlag.

49. References • Pomerleau, A., Malcuit, G., Chamberland, C., Laurendeau, M. & Lamarre, G. (1992). Methodological problems in operant learning research with human infants. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 417-432. • Rheingold, H. L., Gewirtz, J. L., & Ross, H. W. (1959). Social conditioning of vocalization in the infant. Journal of Coparative and Physiological Psychology, 52, 68-73. • Siqueland, E. R., & DeLucia, C. A. (1969). Visual reinforcement of non-nutritive sucking in human infants. Science, 165, 1144-1146. • Siqueland, E. E., & Lipsitt, L. R. (1966). Conditioned head-turning behavior in newborns. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 3, 356-376.

50. References • Slater, A. (1997). Can measures of infant habituation predict later intellectual ability? Archives of Disease in Childhood. 77, 474-476. • Voltair, M., Gewirtz, J. L., & Pelaez, M. (2005). Infant responding compared under conjugate- and continuous-reinforcement schedules. Behavrioal Development Bulletin, 1, 71-79. • Vaughn, M. E. & Michael, J. L. (1982). Automatic reinforcement: An important but ignored concept. Behaviorism, 10, 217-227. • Webb, S. J., Jones, E., J., H., Merkle, K., Namkung, J., Toth, K., Greenson, J.,…Dawson, G. (2010). Toddlers with elevated autism symptoms show slowed habituation for faces. Child Neuropsychol, 16, 255-278.