Conditional Discrimination Procedures: Understanding to Application

1. Conditional Discrimination Procedures: Understanding to Application Jonathan K. Fernand, M.A., BCBA University of Florida B.E.S.T. Consulting, Inc., Sacramento, CA Conferința Națională de Analiză Aplicată a Comportamentului (ABA), Ediția a III-a

2. Overview • Stimulus Control • Discrimination & Generalization • Simple Discrimination • Conditional Discrimination • Guidelines for Teaching • Recommendations • Potential Problems • Additional Considerations

3. Stimulus Control • A response is under stimulus control (the stimulus controls the response) when the response reliably occurs in one stimulus condition (SD) and not in another (S)

4. Stimulus Control • SD: An instruction/stimulus becomes a discriminative stimulus after a history of learning in which the instruction is differentially correlated with the availability of reinforcement. For this to occur, there must be an S condition. • S : An instruction/stimulus becomes an S-Delta after a history of learning in which the instruction is differentially correlated with the NON-availability of reinforcement. For this to occur, there must also be an SD condition.

5. Discrimination “…any difference in responding in the presence of different stimuli; in a more restricted usage, a difference resulting from differential consequences of responding in the presence of different stimuli…” (Catania, 1992)

6. Discrimination • Respond differently to different stimuli.

7. Generalization “…relevant behavior under different, nontraining conditions (i.e., across subjects, settings, people, behaviors, and/or time) without the use of scheduling of the same events in those conditions as had been scheduled in the training conditions.” (Stokes & Baer, 1977)

8. Generalization • Respond similarly to different stimuli.

9. Puppy!

10. Puppy!

11. Difficult to identify specific stimulus properties (or combinations of properties) that acquire control over responding E.g., • Four legs? • Fur? • Tail? • Color? • Body size? • Face length?

12. Different degrees of variation within and across classes of stimuli • Low variation within classes • Low variation between classes • subgroups within a larger category • High variation within and between classes • many different subgroups of exemplars

13. Discrimination Responding differentially to events or groups of events because of individual learning history • Virtually allskills require discrimination • Discriminations vary in complexity and the types of events involved - Simple discrimination - Conditional discrimination

14. Simple Discrimination Simple discrimination contingencies involve 3 components: • Stimulus • Response • Consequence

15. OR… Instruction R SR+/P+ (Discriminative Stimulus) (Response) (Reinforcing/Punishing Stimulus)

16. SR+ R1 S1 SR+ R2 “green” SR+ SR+ “red” SR+ R1 S2 SR+ R2 SR+ “green” SR+ “red”

17. Simultaneous Simple Discrimination What is it?

18. Successive Simple Discrimination What is it?

19. Examples of Simple Discriminations • Tacts • Following instructions • Motor imitation • Vocal imitation • Simple intraverbals

21. Conditional Discrimination Conditional discriminations are one of the most commonly target skills in early and intensive behavioral intervention Established by reinforcing responses to particular antecedent stimuli if and only if they are preceded or accompanied by particular additional stimuli

22. Conditional Discrimination Conditional discrimination contingencies involve 4 components: • Sample Stimulus • Comparison Stimuli • Response • Consequence

23. OR… Instruction R SR+/P+ (Conditional Stimulus) + S+

24. Conditional Discrimination pointing SR+ pointing “green” “red” “blue” SR+ pointing SR+

25. Examples • Matching • Selecting objects (e.g., pictures, words, items) from an array • PECS • Complex Intraverbals

26. Delayed Matching-to-Sample (DMTS)

27. SAMPLE STIMULUS DELAY COMPARISON STIMULI CONSEQUENCE FOOD!!

28. Guidelines for Teaching Conditional Discrimination • Samples differ but comparisons stay the same • Preferable to have at least three comparisons on every trial • Each sample should be presented equally as often • Position of the S+ should vary • Required observing response • Ensure auditory samples are heard • Rearrange comparisons out of sight • Teach how to respond in a MTS arrangement prior to teaching in that format • Errorless teaching methods should be used

30. 0/1 JF 7/24/13 S+ rotates in each position equally as often P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ 100% Comparisons stay the same, at least 3 comparisons Samples differ and presented equally as often

31. Guidelines for Teaching • Samples differ but comparisons stay the same • Preferable to have at least three comparisons on every trial • Each sample should be presented equally as often • Position of the S+ should vary • Required observing response • Ensure auditory samples are heard • Rearrange comparisons out of sight • Teach how to respond in a MTS arrangement prior to teaching in that format • Errorless teaching methods should be used

32. What Could Happen? • Samples differ but comparisons stay the same • Preferable to have at least three comparisons on every trial • Each sample should be presented equally as often • Position of the S+ should vary • Required observing response • Ensure auditory samples are heard • Rearrange comparisons out of sight • Teach how to respond in a MTS arrangement prior to teaching in that format • Errorless teaching methods should be used • If comparisons differ, such as the case when using novel “distracters”, learners may respond to or away from these stimuli • Learners may not attend to the sample stimulus • Not having 3 comparisons will inflate the likelihood that chance responding is occurring as well as decreases the need to discriminate between comparisons • If the sample stays the same, the learner may not be required to attend to the sample and may be reinforcing a simple discrimination rather than a conditional discrimination • If position of the S+ does not vary, individuals may develop a position bias due to increased density of reinforcement for a particular position • Helps to ensure the learner is “ready” and attending to the sample instead of making trial and error guesses or becoming prompt dependent • Can ensure this by having the learner repeat the auditory sample prior to allowing selection of the comparison, making it a requirement that the learner attend to the sample • Teacher behavior may then control learner responses through inadvertent stimulus control if done in front of the learner • Several skills are required to be successful in a MTS arrangement. It is likely that the learner will make errors if they do not have those skills • Errors can foster more errors as well as create conditions in which problem behavior is more likely

33. Considerations • Readiness skills • Attending/Observing • Scanning • Simple discrimination

34. Additional Considerations… • No/limited progress on a set 2 weeks following introduction of a set (e.g., no independent responses) • Moving back and forth between the same two prompt delays for a particular set (e.g., moving between zero and one second delay repeatedly) • Error patterns (e.g., consistent errors with 1 target, side bias, etc.)

35. Literature • Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: Advances in stimulus control technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disorders, 16, 72-85. • Grow, L. L., Carr, J. E., Kodak, T. M., Jostad, C. M., & Kisamore, A. N. (2011). A comparison of methods for teaching receptive labeling to children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 475-498. • Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training-structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 117-137. • Saunders, K., & Spradlin, J. (1989). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: The effect of training the components simple discrimination. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 1-12. • Saunders, K., & Spradlin, J. (1990). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: The development of generalized skills. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 239-250.