1. Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing Literature Review Emily Gallant Caldwell College June 18, 2008

2. Content  Overview  Search criteria  Research lineage  Recent investigation

3. Content  Critique of research  Is current practice evidence-based?  Future directions

4. Overview  Goal: Approximate first stages of language produciton Produce any vocal-verbal behavior Shape into mands  Linear research history  Primary researchers (WMU + AVB) Sundberg Michael

5. Search Criteria  PsycINFO “stimulus-stimulus pairing” (11) specific references cited by target studies  Google to attain article text

6. Theoretical Concept  Respondent conditioning (Watson, Pavlov) [US]Provision of affection, nourishment + [CR]Feel good [CS]Maternal vocal verbal behavior

7. Lineage  Skinner (1957): Verbal behavior Language is behavior Verbal behavior can be automatically reinforced  Bijou & Baer (1965): Infant babbling Emerges due to respondent and operant learning Increased by automatic and direct reinforcement  Other researchers (1950-1982) Support for role of automatic reinforcement Brown et al. – extensive longitudinal analysis of parent-child interactions  Mowrer (1950) Stimulus-stimulus pairing can increase vocalizations Done with mynah birds Sundberg, Partington, Michael, & Sundberg (1996)

8. Lineage  1996 (2)  1998  2000  2002  2005  2006  2008

9. Seminal Study  Sundberg, Partington, Michael, & Sundberg (1996) 4 preschool children with DD 1 typically developing child Pre & post-pairing design Cumulative recording over sessions All Ss emitted more vocalizations without direct reinforcement occurring

10. Early Support  Smith, Michael, & Sundberg (1996) 2 typically developing infants (11, 13 mo) Sounds already in repertoire amenable to contingencies of conditioned SR+/punishment  Yoon (1998) Sounds acquired w/o ext. SR+ Responses acquired mand functions  Yoon & Bennett (2000) 4 children with severe DD Ss had limited imitation repertoire, low BL vocal verbal behavior S-S pairing > echoic training

11. Recent Difficulty  Miguel, Carr, & Michael (2002) 3 Ss with autism (3, 5, 5 yrs) Standardize pairing frequency Better experimental design Maintain effects  Esch, Carr, & Michael (2005) 3 Ss with autism (6.10, 6.11, 8.2 yrs) Maintain effects (avoid EXT) New sounds amenable to contingencies of SR+?  Normand & Knoll (2006) 1 S with autism (3 yrs) Stock, Schulze, & Mirenda (2008)

12. Salient Differences  Participant diagnosis Early - various DD, typically developing Later - autism  Backup SR+ type type Early - social Later - edibles, toys  Procedure Early - measures repeated within one session Later - measures repeated across sessions  Treatment effect Early - yes Later - not so much Stock, Schulze, & Mirenda (2008)

13. Most Recent Study: Stock, Schulze, & Mirenda (2008)  Purpose Identify criteria for successful tx effect  Younger Ss  More trials-per-minute  Social backup SR+  What’s new? Compare s-s pairing to imitation training “control”  Participants 3 Ss with autism New to intervention Low # sounds produced, little verbal im

14. Stock, Schulze, & Mirenda (cont’d)  DV Frequency of target, nontarget sounds Presession, postsession 5 min observation sessions IOA: videotape; 26-82% sessions; criterion  IV Alternating-tx (3 conditions) Unclear baseline/tx design

15. Stock, Schulze, & Mirenda (cont’d)  Results S1: Imitation training (10) > S-S (5) > control (0) S2: Imitation training (10) >>> S-S (4) > control (3-4) S3: S-S (80) >>> imitation training (5) = control Graph difficult to interpret  Discussion Authors claim that no intervention significantly increased vocalizations Temporary effect for one S Reinforcer assessments recommended

16. Critique  Strengths Variables well operationalized Works well for some children Process of elimination  Limitations Procedures not well-standardized Reward potency sometimes unknown Does not work for a majority of subjects Imitation training works better for some

17. Is Practice Evidence-Based?  Gina Green’s Gold Standards: Procedures standards Designs standards Replication standards Continuous measurement Accuracy measure IOA (25% sessions) Tx integrity (25% sessions) +25% w/IOA 6 data points/phase Steady-state trends “Robust” tx effect Little overlap/phases Large change, same size each time 3 BL-tx comparisons per study 3+ participants per study

18. Future Directions  Preference assessments  Reward modality  Procedural specifics  Researcher relationship

19. References  Esch, B. E., Carr, J. E., & Michael, J. (2005). Evaluating stimulus-stimulus pairing and direct reinforcement in the establishment of an echoic repertoire of children diagnosed with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 43-58.  Longano, J. M., & Greer, R. D. (2006). The effects of a stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure on the acquisition of conditioned reinforcement on observing and manipulating stimuli by young children with autism. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3, 62-80.  Miguel, C. F., Carr, J. E., & Michael, J. (2002). The effects of a stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure on the vocal behavior of children diagnosed with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 18, 3-13.  *Smith, R., Michael, J., & Sundberg, M. L. (1996). Automatic reinforcement and automatic punishment in infant vocal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 13, 39-48.  Stock, R. A., Schulze, K. A., & Mirenda, P. (2008). A comparison of stimulus-stimulus pairing, standard echoic training, and control procedures on the vocal behavior of children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24, 123-133.  *Sundberg, M. L., Michael, J., Partington, J. W., & Sundberg, C. A. (1996). The role of automatic reinforcement in early language acquisition. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 13, 21-37.  *Vaughan, M. E., & Michael, J. L. (1982). Automatic reinforcement: An important but ignored concept. Behaviorism, 10, 217-227.