1. 1 10 Essential Rules for Teaching Concepts to Children With Autism Sharon A. Reeve, Ph.D., BCBA Kenneth F. Reeve, Ph.D., BCBA January 16, 2009 Presented at the Conference Evidence-Based Interventions for Teaching Individuals with Autism Sponsored by the AJ Foundation For Children With Autism Evidence-Based Interventions for Teaching Individuals with Autism Sponsored by the AJ Foundation For Children With Autism & The Comprehensive Learning Center

2. 2 The 10 Rules (Presentation Objectives)  Overview of Concepts  Rule #1: Know the Importance of Concepts  Importance to learners with and without autism  Rule #2: Remember the Basics  Generalization, discrimination, etc.  Rule #3: Know How to Use Concept Teaching Procedures  Simultaneous, successive, and conditional discrimination training procedures  Rule #4: Know How to Test for Concept Formation  Behavior necessary to infer concept formation  Rule #5: Teach All Types of Concepts  Perceptual classes, relational classes, equivalence classes

3. 3 The 10 Rules (Presentation Objectives)  Rule #6: Use Multiple Exemplar Training  Analysis of relevant features of exemplars  Rule #7: Use Multiple Distractors  Reducing “correct” chance responding  Rule #8: Teach in Appropriate Context for Specific Concepts  Identify higher order antecedent stimuli  Rule #9: Concurrently Teach Multiple Concepts  Avoid teaching single concepts in isolation  Rule #10: Use Error Analysis  Determine what is controlling behavior when concepts fail

4. 4 Traditional cognitive psychologists talk about internal mental rules that define why certain things “go together” Traditional cognitive psychologists talk about internal mental rules that define why certain things “go together” Cognitive psychologists assert that these internal mental rules ARE concepts Cognitive psychologists assert that these internal mental rules ARE concepts Major problem is that these internal processes are not observable or measureable! Major problem is that these internal processes are not observable or measureable! What is a Concept?

5. 5 Behavior analysts, however, refer to concepts Behavior analysts, however, refer to concepts As sets of stimuli that occasion a common response and… As sets of stimuli that occasion a common response and… Within a set of stimuli, some stimuli occasion the behavior without the benefit of explicit teaching Within a set of stimuli, some stimuli occasion the behavior without the benefit of explicit teaching (other names for concepts are “stimulus classes” or “categories”) (other names for concepts are “stimulus classes” or “categories”) What defines the “boundaries” of a concept (how large or small the set is) is often determined by society, culture, schooling, etc. What defines the “boundaries” of a concept (how large or small the set is) is often determined by society, culture, schooling, etc. E.g., color categories across different cultures E.g., color categories across different cultures What is a Concept?

6. 6 Behavior analysts identify the characteristics of the stimuli in the “concept” that evoke the behavior, rather than rely on inferred and unobservable “mental structures” to explain conceptual behavior Behavior analysts identify the characteristics of the stimuli in the “concept” that evoke the behavior, rather than rely on inferred and unobservable “mental structures” to explain conceptual behavior E.g., what characteristics define “tree” E.g., what characteristics define “tree” Behavior analysts also examine how certain kinds of teaching procedures (discrimination training, programming for generalization) affect the likelihood of concept formation Behavior analysts also examine how certain kinds of teaching procedures (discrimination training, programming for generalization) affect the likelihood of concept formation E.g., How expansive will a child’s concept of “dog” be if we only use 3 exemplars to teach it? E.g., How expansive will a child’s concept of “dog” be if we only use 3 exemplars to teach it? What is a Concept?

7. 7 Rule #1: Know the Importance of Concepts (In General) Get something for nothing Get something for nothing New behavior occurs without training New behavior occurs without training Reduced teaching time Reduced teaching time Less need to explicitly teach everything (economical instructional time) Less need to explicitly teach everything (economical instructional time) “Psychic” power! “Psychic” power! Person can make assertions about the characteristics of something you’ve never encountered before if you know what concept it comes from Person can make assertions about the characteristics of something you’ve never encountered before if you know what concept it comes from

8. 8 Rule #1: Know the Importance of Concepts (Relevance to Autism)  Children with autism have difficulties forming concepts (Burke & Cerniglia, 1990; Bowler, 2006; Johnson & Rakison, 2006; Lovaas, Koegel, & Schreibman, 1979) May be due to failure to respond to multiple stimulus components (called control by restricted features) May be due to failure to respond to multiple stimulus components (called control by restricted features) For example, if a child only attends to “4 legs,” they will be unable to learn concept of DOG (since many other features are also relevant to be called a dog and many other animals are 4-legged) For example, if a child only attends to “4 legs,” they will be unable to learn concept of DOG (since many other features are also relevant to be called a dog and many other animals are 4-legged)

9. 9 Rule #1: Know the Importance of Concepts (Relevance to Autism) Problems may also be due to responding to only a limited range of stimuli (control by restricted concepts) For example, maybe only 2 of the following 4 stimuli are labeled as a “DOG” by a learner with autism For example, maybe only 2 of the following 4 stimuli are labeled as a “DOG” by a learner with autism

10. 10 Rule #1: Know the Importance of Concepts (Relevance to Autism) Control by restricted features and/or restricted concepts is referred to as stimulus overselectivity (Lovaas, Koegel, & Schreibman, 1979) Control by restricted features and/or restricted concepts is referred to as stimulus overselectivity (Lovaas, Koegel, & Schreibman, 1979) This leads to: This leads to: communicative delays in speech and language communicative delays in speech and language problems in academic skills problems in academic skills social delays (Hoffner-Barthold & Egel, 2001) social delays (Hoffner-Barthold & Egel, 2001) Therefore, behavior analysts need to have a better working knowledge of stimulus control issues to remediate these difficulties in concept formation for individuals with autism… Therefore, behavior analysts need to have a better working knowledge of stimulus control issues to remediate these difficulties in concept formation for individuals with autism…

11. 11 Rule #2: Remember the Basics Stimulus Control - study of how antecedent events affect likelihood of a behavior’s occurrence Stimulus Control - study of how antecedent events affect likelihood of a behavior’s occurrence Discriminative stimulus (S D or S+) is an antecedent stimulus that sets the occasion for reinforcement of a specific behavior Discriminative stimulus (S D or S+) is an antecedent stimulus that sets the occasion for reinforcement of a specific behavior Are many within a concept Are many within a concept S-delta (S Δ or S-) or extinction stimulus is an antecedent stimulus that sets the occasion for NON-reinforcement of a specific behavior S-delta (S Δ or S-) or extinction stimulus is an antecedent stimulus that sets the occasion for NON-reinforcement of a specific behavior Often called “distractor stimuli” (non-concept members) Often called “distractor stimuli” (non-concept members)

12. 12 Differential Reinforcement: S D or S Δ When a person responds in one situation but not in another (or responds differently), we say that the person discriminates between the situations. When a person responds in one situation but not in another (or responds differently), we say that the person discriminates between the situations. E.g., Child throws a ball in the yard but not in the living room E.g., Child throws a ball in the yard but not in the living room Simplest way to teach discrimination is to reinforce a specific behavior in one situation (S D ) and withhold reinforcement in the other (S Δ ) Simplest way to teach discrimination is to reinforce a specific behavior in one situation (S D ) and withhold reinforcement in the other (S Δ ) E.g., Child asks for the ball in the yard and is allowed to enjoy playing with the ball. No ball is provided in the living room. E.g., Child asks for the ball in the yard and is allowed to enjoy playing with the ball. No ball is provided in the living room. “Stimulus control” also refers to a change in behavior that occurs when either an S D or S Δ is presented. “Stimulus control” also refers to a change in behavior that occurs when either an S D or S Δ is presented. S D presented = probability of target response increases S D presented = probability of target response increases S Δ presented = probability of same response decreases S Δ presented = probability of same response decreases E.g., Child learns to ask for ball in the yard but not when in the living room E.g., Child learns to ask for ball in the yard but not when in the living room

13. 13 Generalization vs. Discrimination Discrimination = target behavior occurs in one situation but not in others Discrimination = target behavior occurs in one situation but not in others We discriminate “among or between settings, people, stimuli” We discriminate “among or between settings, people, stimuli” E.g., Regarding ball playing, the child can discriminate between the yard and the living room E.g., Regarding ball playing, the child can discriminate between the yard and the living room Generalization = target behavior occurs across multiple situations Generalization = target behavior occurs across multiple situations We generalize “across settings, people, stimuli” We generalize “across settings, people, stimuli” E.g., Child will ask for a ball in the neighbor’s yard, Grandma’s yard, and the school playground E.g., Child will ask for a ball in the neighbor’s yard, Grandma’s yard, and the school playground

14. 14 Stimulus Generalization Why does generalization occur across new stimuli following teaching? Why does generalization occur across new stimuli following teaching? Occurs when new stimuli share common properties or features with the original discriminative stimulus (or stimuli) used in teaching Occurs when new stimuli share common properties or features with the original discriminative stimulus (or stimuli) used in teaching Will “appropriate” generalization occur automatically? (that is, will concepts form?) Will “appropriate” generalization occur automatically? (that is, will concepts form?) Maybe yes, maybe no… Maybe yes, maybe no…

15. 15 Stimulus Discrimination Why does discrimination occur between stimuli? Why does discrimination occur between stimuli? Occurs when other stimuli do NOT share common features with the original discriminative stimulus (or stimuli) used in teaching. Or, does not share sufficient numbers of common features. Occurs when other stimuli do NOT share common features with the original discriminative stimulus (or stimuli) used in teaching. Or, does not share sufficient numbers of common features. Will “appropriate” discrimination occur automatically? (will learner discriminate one concept from another?) Will “appropriate” discrimination occur automatically? (will learner discriminate one concept from another?) Maybe yes, maybe no… Maybe yes, maybe no…

16. 16 Role of Generalization and Discrimination in Concept Formation Target behavior generalizes WITHIN the concept (i.e., within a set of stimuli, each concept member occasions a common response) Target behavior generalizes WITHIN the concept (i.e., within a set of stimuli, each concept member occasions a common response) E.g., Child says “That’s a cat” in the presence of many different cats E.g., Child says “That’s a cat” in the presence of many different cats Target behavior does NOT generalize to OTHER concepts (i.e., learner discriminates among different concepts) Target behavior does NOT generalize to OTHER concepts (i.e., learner discriminates among different concepts) Nothing is said, or some other expressive label (“That one’s a dog!”) is given for members of other concepts Nothing is said, or some other expressive label (“That one’s a dog!”) is given for members of other concepts

17. 17 Rule #3: Know How to Use Concept Teaching Procedures One method is to arrange the presentation of S D s from different concepts (called “exemplars”) so that one follows an other (called successive discrimination training). One method is to arrange the presentation of S D s from different concepts (called “exemplars”) so that one follows an other (called successive discrimination training). Teach behavior that is appropriate for each S D (or teach learner NOT to respond to an S Δ ) Teach behavior that is appropriate for each S D (or teach learner NOT to respond to an S Δ ) See simple successive discrimination training example on next slide… See simple successive discrimination training example on next slide…

18. 18 “If you see money, take it” Learner receives reinforcement for taking the money

19. 19 “If you see money, take it” Learner receives NO reinforcement for taking the ball

20. 20 Rule #3: Know How to Use Concept Teaching Procedures In alternative procedure, simultaneous discrimination, the S D for one concept is presented with multiple S Δs (members of other concepts) at the same time In alternative procedure, simultaneous discrimination, the S D for one concept is presented with multiple S Δs (members of other concepts) at the same time Learner is taught to respond to the S D. Learner is taught to respond to the S D. See simple simultaneous discrimination training example on next slide… See simple simultaneous discrimination training example on next slide…

21. 21 “If you see money, take it” Learner receives NO reinforcement for taking the clock or ball Learner receives reinforcement for taking the money

22. 22 In another procedure, conditional discrimination training, the presence of a “sample stimulus” (such as a visual stimulus or different instructions given to a learner) dictates which of two or more “comparison stimuli” or “distractors” the learner should select. In another procedure, conditional discrimination training, the presence of a “sample stimulus” (such as a visual stimulus or different instructions given to a learner) dictates which of two or more “comparison stimuli” or “distractors” the learner should select. The “sample stimulus” changes from one trial to another The “sample stimulus” changes from one trial to another See example on next slide… See example on next slide… Rule #3: Know How to Use Concept Teaching Procedures

23. 23 “Pick the money” “Pick the ball” One sample trial Another trial Learner receives reinforcement for taking the money Learner receives reinforcement for taking the ball

24. 24 Conditional Discrimination The behavioral function of each comparison changes depending on the presence of the sample. The behavioral function of each comparison changes depending on the presence of the sample. That is, sometimes a comparison stimulus is an S D for selecting it and in other situations the S Δ That is, sometimes a comparison stimulus is an S D for selecting it and in other situations the S Δ The correct response is “conditional on” (dependent on) the specific sample stimulus The correct response is “conditional on” (dependent on) the specific sample stimulus Conditional discrimination is an “IF-THEN” rule Conditional discrimination is an “IF-THEN” rule

25. 25 Conditional Discrimination = Matching To Sample Because the conditional stimulus is referred to as a sample and the choices we respond to are called comparisons, this procedure is also called matching to sample (MTS) Because the conditional stimulus is referred to as a sample and the choices we respond to are called comparisons, this procedure is also called matching to sample (MTS) More examples…next slide More examples…next slide

26. 26 Conditional Discrimination = Matching To Sample Identity matching (match one thing to itself) Identity matching (match one thing to itself)

27. 27 Conditional Discrimination = Matching To Sample Perceptual similarity-based matching (e.g., match one dog picture to a similar dog picture) Perceptual similarity-based matching (e.g., match one dog picture to a similar dog picture)

28. 28 Conditional Discrimination = Matching To Sample Arbitrary matching (e.g., match one dog picture to dissimilar stimulus such as a word) Arbitrary matching (e.g., match one dog picture to dissimilar stimulus such as a word) DOGHOPCAT

29. 29 Rule #4: Know How to Test for Concept Formation Specific behavioral properties must be demonstrated in the presence of the stimulus members to infer that they are functioning as a concept: Specific behavioral properties must be demonstrated in the presence of the stimulus members to infer that they are functioning as a concept: Each stimulus in the set occasions a particular response Each stimulus in the set occasions a particular response This generalization emerges after training has occurred with only a subset of all the possible stimuli in the potential class (Lea, 1984; Herrnstein, 1990). This generalization emerges after training has occurred with only a subset of all the possible stimuli in the potential class (Lea, 1984; Herrnstein, 1990). Stimuli in other sets do not occasion that same response (Adams et al., 1993; Fields, Adams, Buffington, Yang, & Verhave, 1996; Wasserman & DeVolder, 1993). Stimuli in other sets do not occasion that same response (Adams et al., 1993; Fields, Adams, Buffington, Yang, & Verhave, 1996; Wasserman & DeVolder, 1993).

30. 30 Rule #4: Know How to Test Concept Formation Example: If teaching the concept of “dog,” how does an instructor infer that the child has learned the concept? Example: If teaching the concept of “dog,” how does an instructor infer that the child has learned the concept? Child says “That is a dog” to many different dog pictures (this happens even though child was directly taught to respond to only some of the pictures) Child says “That is a dog” to many different dog pictures (this happens even though child was directly taught to respond to only some of the pictures) Child does NOT say “That is a dog” to pictures of lions or tigers or bears, etc. Child does NOT say “That is a dog” to pictures of lions or tigers or bears, etc.

31. 31 1. Perceptual class = stimuli in the set share some physical characteristics 1. Perceptual class = stimuli in the set share some physical characteristics Examples: dogs, flowers, children, chairs, cars, etc. Examples: dogs, flowers, children, chairs, cars, etc. 2. Relational class = stimuli in the set characterize some abstract relationship 2. Relational class = stimuli in the set characterize some abstract relationship Example: “bigger than,” “same/different” Example: “bigger than,” “same/different” 3. Equivalence class = stimuli do NOT share any physical characteristics (Stimuli “go together” just because society says so) 3. Equivalence class = stimuli do NOT share any physical characteristics (Stimuli “go together” just because society says so) Example: numeral 1 = written one = spoken “WUN” Example: numeral 1 = written one = spoken “WUN” Rule #5: Teach All Types of Concepts

32. 32 1. Perceptual Classes In these concepts, there is a perceived similarity across the stimuli within the concept In these concepts, there is a perceived similarity across the stimuli within the concept It is difficult, however, It is difficult, however, (a) to define all stimulus properties (features) of concept members, and (a) to define all stimulus properties (features) of concept members, and (b) to identify the range or “boundaries” of the concepts (these characteristics are ill-defined or fuzzy) (b) to identify the range or “boundaries” of the concepts (these characteristics are ill-defined or fuzzy) stimuli in perceptual classes contain different combinations of multiple possible features stimuli in perceptual classes contain different combinations of multiple possible features For example, what features define DOGS? Rachmaninoff music? TREES? For example, what features define DOGS? Rachmaninoff music? TREES? (Adams, Fields, & Verhave, 1993; Blough, 1990; Cerella, 1979; Cook et al., 1990; Herrnstein, 1990; Lea, 1984; Rosch & Mervis, 1975) (Adams, Fields, & Verhave, 1993; Blough, 1990; Cerella, 1979; Cook et al., 1990; Herrnstein, 1990; Lea, 1984; Rosch & Mervis, 1975)

33. 33 Perceptual Classes: Control of Responding Presumably, category members contain some combination of multiple possible features (I.e., a tree contains a certain number of tree features: leaves, bark, tall, etc.) Presumably, category members contain some combination of multiple possible features (I.e., a tree contains a certain number of tree features: leaves, bark, tall, etc.) If a stimulus does not contain enough of these features, then it will probably be excluded from class membership If a stimulus does not contain enough of these features, then it will probably be excluded from class membership (Herrnstein, 1990; Jitsumori, 1993, 1996; Lea & Ryan, 1984; Medin & Smith, 1984; Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Smith & Medin, 1981; Wasserman, Kiedinger, & Bhatt, 1988) (Herrnstein, 1990; Jitsumori, 1993, 1996; Lea & Ryan, 1984; Medin & Smith, 1984; Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Smith & Medin, 1981; Wasserman, Kiedinger, & Bhatt, 1988)

34. 34 Teaching & Testing Procedures During teaching, learners are exposed to multiple different stimuli from each potential perceptual class During teaching, learners are exposed to multiple different stimuli from each potential perceptual class called multiple exemplar training (MET) (Becker, 1971; Cook et al., 1990; Haring, Breen, & Laitenen, 1989; Homa & Little, 1985) called multiple exemplar training (MET) (Becker, 1971; Cook et al., 1990; Haring, Breen, & Laitenen, 1989; Homa & Little, 1985) Stimuli can be presented either one at a time (successive discrimination), or concurrently (simultaneous discrimination), or in conditional discrimination. Stimuli can be presented either one at a time (successive discrimination), or concurrently (simultaneous discrimination), or in conditional discrimination.

35. 35 “What is this?” Learner receives reinforcement for saying “car” Successive discrimination trial with one car exemplar

36. 36 “What is this?” Learner receives reinforcement for saying “car” Successive discrimination trial with another car exemplar

37. 37 “What is this?” Learner receives NO reinforcement for saying “car” (but does receive reinforcement, of course, for saying “truck” if that concept is also being taught) Successive discrimination trial with a non-car distractor

38. 38 “Point to the car” Learner receives NO reinforcement for pointing to the motorcycle or truck Learner receives reinforcement for pointing to car Simultaneous discrimination trial with one car exemplar and two distractors

39. 39 “Point to the car” Learner receives NO reinforcement for pointing to the motorcycle or truck Learner receives reinforcement for pointing to car Simultaneous discrimination trial with another car exemplar and another two distractors

40. 40 Testing for the Concept Additional NOVEL stimuli from the same concept must occasion the same target behavior even though they had never been presented before (this is generalization to new concept members) Additional NOVEL stimuli from the same concept must occasion the same target behavior even though they had never been presented before (this is generalization to new concept members) Likewise, the learner should NOT emit the target behavior in the presence of novel NON-members (discrimination between categories) Likewise, the learner should NOT emit the target behavior in the presence of novel NON-members (discrimination between categories) To assess this… To assess this…

41. 41 “What is this?” Child says “Car” but no programmed consequences Generalization test trial (successive discrimination trial) with a novel car not used in teaching

42. 42 “Point to the car” Generalization test trial (simultaneous discrimination trial) with another novel car not used in teaching No programmed consequences

43. 43 Training & Testing Procedures: Conditional Discrimination establishment of perceptual classes can also involve conditional discrimination procedures, such as matching to sample establishment of perceptual classes can also involve conditional discrimination procedures, such as matching to sample

44. 44 Training & Testing Procedures: Conditional Discrimination sample Following presentation of the sample, some observing response, such as touching the sample, must be emitted. Following presentation of the sample, some observing response, such as touching the sample, must be emitted.

45. 45 Training & Testing Procedures: Conditional Discrimination Next, at least two additional stimuli, called comparisons, are presented. Next, at least two additional stimuli, called comparisons, are presented. One is drawn from the same potential perceptual class as the sample and is called the positive comparison One is drawn from the same potential perceptual class as the sample and is called the positive comparison Other comparison comes from a different class and is called the negative comparison Other comparison comes from a different class and is called the negative comparison

46. 46 Training & Testing Procedures: Conditional Discrimination Sample 1 + comparison - comparison

47. 47 Sample 1 + comparison- comparison

48. 48 Training & Testing Procedures: Conditional Discrimination Sample 2 + comparison - comparison

49. 49 Sample 2 - comparison + comparison

50. 50 Testing Procedures: Conditional Discrimination New NOVEL stimuli must occasion selection of other concept members even though they had never been paired together before in a match-to-sample trial (generalization to new concept members) New NOVEL stimuli must occasion selection of other concept members even though they had never been paired together before in a match-to-sample trial (generalization to new concept members) Likewise, novel stimuli must NOT occasion selection of stimuli from a different concept (discrimination between concepts) Likewise, novel stimuli must NOT occasion selection of stimuli from a different concept (discrimination between concepts) To assess this… To assess this…

51. 51 Sample 1 NOVEL + comparison- comparison

52. 52 Sample 2 - comparison NOVEL + comparison

53. 53 2. Relational Classes: Definition These concepts are more abstract because no specific stimulus features define concept membership, nor is any specific stimulus by itself a “member” These concepts are more abstract because no specific stimulus features define concept membership, nor is any specific stimulus by itself a “member” Rather, the concept is defined by a specific relationship among or between stimuli Rather, the concept is defined by a specific relationship among or between stimuli For example… For example…

54. 54 Relational Classes: Definition Consider the unlimited number of pairs of stimuli that define the concept of “larger than” Consider the unlimited number of pairs of stimuli that define the concept of “larger than” “Which one is larger?”

55. 55 “Which one is larger?”

56. 56 “Which one is larger?” Note that any pair of objects can exemplify the concept “larger” as long as one occupies more physical space than the other Note that any pair of objects can exemplify the concept “larger” as long as one occupies more physical space than the other

57. 57 Relational Classes: Definition Another example is the abstract relational concept of “same” Again, no particular stimuli define the concept. Again, no particular stimuli define the concept. Any two (or more) stimuli that are identical in all respects can serve as exemplars of the concept Any two (or more) stimuli that are identical in all respects can serve as exemplars of the concept

58. 58 “Are these the same?”

59. 59 “Are these the same?”

60. 60 “Are these the same?”

61. 61 “Are these the same?”

62. 62 3. Equivalence Classes: Definition A finite group of physically disparate stimuli (no perceptual similarity) A finite group of physically disparate stimuli (no perceptual similarity) Stimuli become related solely as a function of teaching (Fields, Adams, Buffington, Yang, & Verhave, 1996; Fields, Reeve, Adams, Brown, & Verhave, 1991; Sidman & Tailby, 1982; Sidman, 1994) Stimuli become related solely as a function of teaching (Fields, Adams, Buffington, Yang, & Verhave, 1996; Fields, Reeve, Adams, Brown, & Verhave, 1991; Sidman & Tailby, 1982; Sidman, 1994) An equivalence class must contain at least three stimuli (but often has many more) An equivalence class must contain at least three stimuli (but often has many more) Typically taught using conditional discrimination procedures Typically taught using conditional discrimination procedures

63. 63 Example Stimuli in a 3-Member Equivalence Class Written word Written word Spoken word Spoken word A picture A picture DOG “DOG”

64. 64 Another Example Written word Written word Spoken word Spoken word A picture A picture CAT “CAT”

65. 65 Rule #6: Use Multiple Exemplar Training Experiments show that larger numbers of training exemplars produce better concept learning than fewer exemplars (Becker, 1971; Bhatt & Wright 1992; Engelmann, & Carnine, 1982; Homa & Chambliss, 1975; Homa, Cross, Cornell, Goldman, & Swartz, 1973; Homa, Sterling, & Treple, 1981; Omohundro, 1981; Sands, & Delius, 1988) Experiments show that larger numbers of training exemplars produce better concept learning than fewer exemplars (Becker, 1971; Bhatt & Wright 1992; Engelmann, & Carnine, 1982; Homa & Chambliss, 1975; Homa, Cross, Cornell, Goldman, & Swartz, 1973; Homa, Sterling, & Treple, 1981; Omohundro, 1981; Sands, & Delius, 1988) No studies YET for children with autism! No studies YET for children with autism!

66. 66 Why is Multiple Exemplar Training (MET) Superior for Concept Formation? Unlikely that a single exemplar of a perceptual class, for example will contain all the possible relevant features that define membership Unlikely that a single exemplar of a perceptual class, for example will contain all the possible relevant features that define membership Teach a variety of exemplars that represent all relevant features Teach a variety of exemplars that represent all relevant features E.g., selecting pictures containing relevant features of dogs E.g., selecting pictures containing relevant features of dogs Also, since stimuli may also contain features that are IRRELEVANT for class membership, these irrelevant features may be controlling behavior Also, since stimuli may also contain features that are IRRELEVANT for class membership, these irrelevant features may be controlling behavior E.g., if you use five pictures of dogs with brown collars, then any animal with a brown collar may be called a dog E.g., if you use five pictures of dogs with brown collars, then any animal with a brown collar may be called a dog For control of responding to be exerted by the relevant features, the learner must, by necessity, be exposed to more than one class exemplar (more…) For control of responding to be exerted by the relevant features, the learner must, by necessity, be exposed to more than one class exemplar (more…)

67. 67 Why is ME Training Superior? As the number of exemplars used during discrimination training increases, there is a greater probability that the learner’s behavior will be reinforced in the presence of the relevant features and a reduced likelihood of reinforcement in the presence of irrelevant features As the number of exemplars used during discrimination training increases, there is a greater probability that the learner’s behavior will be reinforced in the presence of the relevant features and a reduced likelihood of reinforcement in the presence of irrelevant features E.g., Child’s behavior for selecting a picture of a dog must occur in the presence of relevant features for a dog: round/oblong head shape, tall shoulders, claws always present, bigger nose & eyes (barking) E.g., Child’s behavior for selecting a picture of a dog must occur in the presence of relevant features for a dog: round/oblong head shape, tall shoulders, claws always present, bigger nose & eyes (barking) Behavior never occurs in the presence of irrelevant features: short shoulders, retracted claws, smaller nose & eyes, triangle head shape (meowing) Behavior never occurs in the presence of irrelevant features: short shoulders, retracted claws, smaller nose & eyes, triangle head shape (meowing) Keep in mind there are always features dogs that dogs share with other categories of animals –fur, 4-legs –so you need to make sure that the relevant dog-specific features are there. Keep in mind there are always features dogs that dogs share with other categories of animals –fur, 4-legs –so you need to make sure that the relevant dog-specific features are there.

68. 68 Why Not a Single Exemplar? Although teaching with a single exemplar might be “easier,” it provides an equal likelihood that both relevant and irrelevant features will be correlated with reinforcement for responding, thus reducing the likelihood the child will learn the category (they often will just learn that one picture) Although teaching with a single exemplar might be “easier,” it provides an equal likelihood that both relevant and irrelevant features will be correlated with reinforcement for responding, thus reducing the likelihood the child will learn the category (they often will just learn that one picture) For example, only using one picture of a dog to teach the category of dog might mean “4-legs” is controlling the behavior and not dog-specific features, such as shape of head etc. For example, only using one picture of a dog to teach the category of dog might mean “4-legs” is controlling the behavior and not dog-specific features, such as shape of head etc. As another example, using only a banana to teach the color yellow might lead to the shape of the banana or its smell or the peel rather than the color controlling behavior. As another example, using only a banana to teach the color yellow might lead to the shape of the banana or its smell or the peel rather than the color controlling behavior.

69. Pilot Study Alternating concept teaching with many exemplars versus few exemplars to see which produces better concept formation Alternating concept teaching with many exemplars versus few exemplars to see which produces better concept formation Conducted with young learners with autism who do not show basic concepts Conducted with young learners with autism who do not show basic concepts Taught 6 animal concepts (half of classes with 3 exemplars each and other half with 6 exemplars each) Taught 6 animal concepts (half of classes with 3 exemplars each and other half with 6 exemplars each) See sample trial… See sample trial… 69

70. 70 “Point to DOG” TRAINING: Used 3 different teaching exemplars of dogs, cats, and birds TRAINING: Used 3 different teaching exemplars of dogs, cats, and birds On alternate days, used 6 different teaching exemplars of horses, snakes, and monkeys On alternate days, used 6 different teaching exemplars of horses, snakes, and monkeys For TESTING: Used 3 NOVEL exemplars for EACH concept For TESTING: Used 3 NOVEL exemplars for EACH concept Results… Results…

71. 71

72. 72 Rule #7: Use Multiple Distractors (Comparison Stimuli) Consider the conditional discrimination (MTS) procedure used to teach our categories of DOGS and CATS Consider the conditional discrimination (MTS) procedure used to teach our categories of DOGS and CATS In previous slides, we showed you trials in which there were only 2 comparison stimuli (a positive and negative comparison) In previous slides, we showed you trials in which there were only 2 comparison stimuli (a positive and negative comparison) There are a few problems with this arrangement (see next…) There are a few problems with this arrangement (see next…) “DOG”

73. 73 Effects of Number of Distractors One problem is that a child may learn to respond to dog stimuli but then simply respond “anything but dog” on trials in which cat stimuli should be selected One problem is that a child may learn to respond to dog stimuli but then simply respond “anything but dog” on trials in which cat stimuli should be selected As a result, the child will still be correct on cat trials, but NOT because they have learned the CAT concept As a result, the child will still be correct on cat trials, but NOT because they have learned the CAT concept This is called responding by exclusion and it produces a failure to learn the second concept This is called responding by exclusion and it produces a failure to learn the second concept A learner really doesn’t have to attend to the other concept; just make sure it is NOT a dog stimulus A learner really doesn’t have to attend to the other concept; just make sure it is NOT a dog stimulus “DOG”

74. 74 Effects of Number of Distractors Another problem with only two comparisons is that the probability of being correct by GUESSING is 50%! Another problem with only two comparisons is that the probability of being correct by GUESSING is 50%! If guesses are reinforced, but not “conceptual behavior,” then it is unlikely that the concept will be learned since the relevant features are NOT what is controlling behavior If guesses are reinforced, but not “conceptual behavior,” then it is unlikely that the concept will be learned since the relevant features are NOT what is controlling behavior “DOG”

75. 75 Increasing Number of Distractors Adding additional distractors reduces the likelihood of guessing being reinforced Adding additional distractors reduces the likelihood of guessing being reinforced In the example below, there is now only a 25% chance of a guess being reinforced In the example below, there is now only a 25% chance of a guess being reinforced “DOG”

76. 76 Increasing Number of Distractors Adding additional distractors also reduces the likelihood that any class was learned by exclusion Adding additional distractors also reduces the likelihood that any class was learned by exclusion In the training paradigm below, the child would need to learn at least 3 of the 4 concepts (CAT, DOG, BIRD). The fourth, however, might still be learned as “NOT cat, dog, bird” but it would not be FROG In the training paradigm below, the child would need to learn at least 3 of the 4 concepts (CAT, DOG, BIRD). The fourth, however, might still be learned as “NOT cat, dog, bird” but it would not be FROG “DOG”

77. Rule #8: When Possible, Teach in the Context That Exerts Control Over the Conceptual Behavior  Identify all higher order antecedent stimuli and teach concepts in their presence  Stokes and Baer (1977) referred to this principle as “programming for common stimuli”  The folks at PCDI often use this principle through the use of activity schedules  E.g., A tooth-brushing schedule is found in the bathroom and contains relevant pictures of items necessary for brushing teeth

78. Rule #9: Concurrently Teach Multiple Concepts Do not teach a single concept in isolation Do not teach a single concept in isolation Examples on next slide… Examples on next slide… 78

79. DOG

83. What’s the Problem? Assuming you saw those 3 trials, would you say that the learner can match the written word DOG to the corresponding dog picture? NO Assuming you saw those 3 trials, would you say that the learner can match the written word DOG to the corresponding dog picture? NO What function might the sample or conditional stimulus (written word) be serving? NONE What function might the sample or conditional stimulus (written word) be serving? NONE What is the problem with arranging trials in this way? EVERYTHING! What is the problem with arranging trials in this way? EVERYTHING!

84. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER TEACH IN ISOLATION This “tricks” the teacher that a child is learning a concept. In fact, child may not be learning a concept This “tricks” the teacher that a child is learning a concept. In fact, child may not be learning a concept A more serious mistake is that child many be learning the wrong things, such as: A more serious mistake is that child many be learning the wrong things, such as: Don’t attend to the sample stimulus Don’t attend to the sample stimulus Don’t attend to the comparison stimulus Don’t attend to the comparison stimulus Pick whatever picture is on the desk Pick whatever picture is on the desk E.g., 5 x 2, 7 + 3, 9 + 1, 12 – 2, E.g., 5 x 2, 7 + 3, 9 + 1, 12 – 2, 4 – 2, 3 – 1, 2 – 0, 5 – 3, 6 – 4, 7 - 5 4 – 2, 3 – 1, 2 – 0, 5 – 3, 6 – 4, 7 - 5 84

85. Rule #10: When Concept Formation Fails, Use Error Analysis! Did you first identify the relevant features making up the concept? What are the relevant features of a shoe Shape, fasteners, sole/heal, Did you make sure the relevant features appear often in your teaching exemplars? Have a wide variety of shoes with shape, fasteners, sole/heal Did you make sure that irrelevant features are not consistently appearing E.g., all shoes used in teaching are brown

86. Problems In Conditional Discrimination (MTS) Training Also called “extraneous stimulus control” Also called “extraneous stimulus control” That is, something other than the teacher- defined antecedent stimuli is controlling behavior That is, something other than the teacher- defined antecedent stimuli is controlling behavior Often times, extraneous control can APPEAR to be “proper” stimulus control Often times, extraneous control can APPEAR to be “proper” stimulus control Let’s examine the following trials… Let’s examine the following trials…

87. CAT

90. What’s the problem? Assuming you saw those 3 trials, would you say that the learner can match the written word CAT to a picture of a cat? Assuming you saw those 3 trials, would you say that the learner can match the written word CAT to a picture of a cat? What function might the sample or conditional stimulus (written word CAT) be serving? NONE What function might the sample or conditional stimulus (written word CAT) be serving? NONE What is the problem with arranging trials in isolation this way? SAMPLE BECOMES IRRELEVANT What is the problem with arranging trials in isolation this way? SAMPLE BECOMES IRRELEVANT

91. What’s the problem? Now look at these 3 trials… Now look at these 3 trials…

92. CAT

93. DOG

94. HAMSTER

95. What’s the problem? Assuming you saw those 3 trials, would you say that the learner can match the written word to corresponding picture? Assuming you saw those 3 trials, would you say that the learner can match the written word to corresponding picture? What function might the sample or conditional stimuli (written words) be serving? NONE What function might the sample or conditional stimuli (written words) be serving? NONE What is the problem with arranging trials in this way? LEFT COMPARISON IS ALWAYS CORRECT What is the problem with arranging trials in this way? LEFT COMPARISON IS ALWAYS CORRECT

96. What’s the problem? Now look at some more trials… Now look at some more trials…

97. DOG

100. What’s the Problem? Assuming you saw those 3 trials, would you say that the learner can match the written word DOG to the corresponding dog picture? Assuming you saw those 3 trials, would you say that the learner can match the written word DOG to the corresponding dog picture? What function might the sample or conditional stimulus (written word) be serving? NONE What function might the sample or conditional stimulus (written word) be serving? NONE What is the problem with arranging trials in this way? NEW STIMULI ARE NEVER CORRECT SO THEY CAN BE IGNORED! What is the problem with arranging trials in this way? NEW STIMULI ARE NEVER CORRECT SO THEY CAN BE IGNORED! Are these novel distractors relevant? NO Are these novel distractors relevant? NO

101. Strategies to Reduce Extraneous Stimulus Control in MTS Within a session, alternate the sample stimuli used. Within a session, alternate the sample stimuli used. E.g., Can’t always be a picture of a dog E.g., Can’t always be a picture of a dog Each different sample should appear in an equal number of trials. Each different sample should appear in an equal number of trials. E.g., don’t teach more trials of dog than cat – teach equal number of trials of cat and dog E.g., don’t teach more trials of dog than cat – teach equal number of trials of cat and dog Use the SAME comparisons within a session during training. Use the SAME comparisons within a session during training.

102. More Strategies to Reduce Extraneous Stimulus Control in MTS Make every comparison used be, at some point, a correct answer Make every comparison used be, at some point, a correct answer E.g., cat, dog, frog E.g., cat, dog, frog Use 3 or more comparisons on every trial to reduce likelihood of reinforcing guessing. What is the limit on number of comparisons? Use 3 or more comparisons on every trial to reduce likelihood of reinforcing guessing. What is the limit on number of comparisons? Within a session, the correct comparison stimuli should appear equally often (frequency of occurrence) Within a session, the correct comparison stimuli should appear equally often (frequency of occurrence)

103. More Strategies to Reduce Extraneous Stimulus Control in MTS Within a session, the correct comparison stimuli should appear equally often in EACH POSITION Within a session, the correct comparison stimuli should appear equally often in EACH POSITION For each trials, the learner should be required to make an observing response to the sample (conditional) stimulus. For each trials, the learner should be required to make an observing response to the sample (conditional) stimulus. Require the learner to touch or point to the sample Require the learner to touch or point to the sample Do not rearrange the trial stimuli in front of the learner. Screen these and then present them in the “proper” array. Do not rearrange the trial stimuli in front of the learner. Screen these and then present them in the “proper” array.

104. More Strategies to Reduce Extraneous Stimulus Control in MTS If teaching matching, have learners POINT to the correct comparisons rather than PLACE ON TOP of the sample stimulus. If teaching matching, have learners POINT to the correct comparisons rather than PLACE ON TOP of the sample stimulus. This is a very functional response that is good to practice This is a very functional response that is good to practice The learner can see both stimuli at the same time The learner can see both stimuli at the same time At some point the stimuli may be too big to move (E.g. refrigerator, car) At some point the stimuli may be too big to move (E.g. refrigerator, car)

105. More Strategies to Reduce Extraneous Stimulus Control in MTS Use errorless teaching rather than trial and error Use errorless teaching rather than trial and error E.g., Make relevant feature more salient E.g., Make relevant feature more salient Idea here is that we may also reduce emotional side effects of trial and error learning Idea here is that we may also reduce emotional side effects of trial and error learning E.g., gradually fade out stimulus prompts E.g., gradually fade out stimulus prompts

106. 106 References Adams, B. J., Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1993a). Formation of generalized equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 43, 553-566. Becker, W. (1971). Teaching concepts and operations, or how to make kids smart. In W. Becker, (Ed.) An empirical basis for change in education. Science Research Associates. Becker, W. (1971). Teaching concepts and operations, or how to make kids smart. In W. Becker, (Ed.) An empirical basis for change in education. Science Research Associates. Blough, D. S. (1990). Form similarity and categorization in pigeon visual research. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, S. Kosslyn, & D. Mumford (Eds.) Models of behavior: Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Blough, D. S. (1990). Form similarity and categorization in pigeon visual research. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, S. Kosslyn, & D. Mumford (Eds.) Models of behavior: Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bourne, L. E., Dominowski, R. L. & Loftus, E. F. (1979). Cognitive processes. Englewood Cliffs New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Bourne, L. E., Dominowski, R. L. & Loftus, E. F. (1979). Cognitive processes. Englewood Cliffs New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Burke, J. C., & Cerniglia L. (1990). Stimulus complexity and autistic children's responsivity: Assessing and training a pivotal behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 233–253. Burke, J. C., & Cerniglia L. (1990). Stimulus complexity and autistic children's responsivity: Assessing and training a pivotal behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 233–253. Cerella, J. (1979). Visual classes and natural categories in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 68-77. Cerella, J. (1979). Visual classes and natural categories in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 68-77. Cook, R. G., Wright, A. A., & Kendrick, D. F. (1990). Visual categorization by pigeons. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Cook, R. G., Wright, A. A., & Kendrick, D. F. (1990). Visual categorization by pigeons. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington. Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Buffington, D. M., Yang, W., & Verhave, T. (1996). Response transfer between stimuli in generalized equivalence classes: A model for the establishment of natural kind and fuzzy superordinate categories. Psychological Record, 46, 665-684. Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Buffington, D. M., Yang, W., & Verhave, T. (1996). Response transfer between stimuli in generalized equivalence classes: A model for the establishment of natural kind and fuzzy superordinate categories. Psychological Record, 46, 665-684. Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Adams, B. J., Brown, J. L., & Verhave, T. (1997). Primary generalization predicts the generalization of emergent relations: A merger of equivalence classes and perceptual classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Levels of stimulus control: A functional approach. Cognition, 37, 133-166. Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Levels of stimulus control: A functional approach. Cognition, 37, 133-166. Herrnstein, S. Kosslyn, & D. Mumford (Eds.) Models of behavior: Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Herrnstein, S. Kosslyn, & D. Mumford (Eds.) Models of behavior: Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayes, S.C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. Hayes, S.C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

107. 107 References Hoffner-Barthold, C. & Egel, A.L. (2001). Stimulus overselectivity and generative language instruction for students with autism: An issue that needs to be revisited. The Behavior Analyst Today, 2, 33- 39. Homa, D., & Chambliss, D. (1975). The relative contributions of common and distinctive information on the abstraction from ill-defined categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 351-359. Homa, D., & Chambliss, D. (1975). The relative contributions of common and distinctive information on the abstraction from ill-defined categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 351-359. Homa, D., Cross, J., Cornell, D., Goldman, D., & Swartz, S. (1973). Prototype abstraction and classification of new instances as a function of number of instances defining the prototype. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 116-122. Homa, D., Cross, J., Cornell, D., Goldman, D., & Swartz, S. (1973). Prototype abstraction and classification of new instances as a function of number of instances defining the prototype. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 116-122. Homa, D., & Little, J. (1985). The abstraction and long-term retention of ill-defined categories by children. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 325-328. Homa, D., & Little, J. (1985). The abstraction and long-term retention of ill-defined categories by children. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 325-328. Homa, D., Sterling, S., & Treple, L. (1981). Limitations of exemplar-based generalization and the abstraction of categorical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 418-439. Jitsumori, M. (1993). Category discrimination of artificial polymorphous stimuli based on feature learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 19, 244-254. Jitsumori, M. (1996). A prototype effect and categorization of artificial polymorphous stimuli in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 405-419. Johnson, C. R., & Rakison D. (2006). Early categorization of animate / inanimate concepts in young children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 18, 73-89. Lea, S. E. G., & Ryan, C. M. E. (1984). Feature analysis of pigeons' acquisition of concept discrimination. In H. L. Roitblatt, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.) Animal cognition (pp. 233- 261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lovaas, O. I., Koegel, R., & Schreibman, L. (1979). Stimulus overselectivity in autism: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1236- 1254.

108. 108 References Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Omohundro, J. (1981). Recognition vs. classification of ill-defined category exemplars. Memory & Cognition, 9, 324-331. Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative, Inc. Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5-22. Wasserman, E. A., & DeVolder, C. L. (1993). Similarity and nonsimilarity-based conceptualization in children and pigeons. The Psychological Record, 43, 779-794. Wasserman, E. A., Kiedinger, R. E., & Bhatt, R. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artificial stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 235-246.