Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discrimination Training Through Time Delay of Multistimulus Prompts: The Shapes and Locations of the Prompts

  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study Investigated the relationship between the shape and location of multistimulus prompts and the distinctive features of task stimuli as an important variable for establishing a difficult form discrimination through time delay. The subjects in the two experiments of the study were 4- and 5-year-old children. Two color cues were used in each of the four conditions in Experiment 1, one for prompting responding to the S+ and one for preventing responding to the S-. The prompts had either the same shape as the distinctive features of the task stimuli or a different shape, and they were presented next to or distant from these features. The results show that most subjects learn the task only when the shapes and locations of the prompts correspond with those of the critical features of the task stimuli. Experiment 2 investigated whether a complete spatial unification of the prompts with the distinctive features of the task stimuli would further increase the efficacy of time delay. Two conditions were used, one in which the prompts were presented at the very same locations as the critical features (unified prompts) and one in which they were presented next to these features (juxtaposed prompts). The results show no significant differences between conditions. Both conditions result in most or almost all subjects learning the task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AESCHLEMAN. S. R., & HIGGINS, A. F. (1982). Concept learning by retarded children: A comparison of three discrimination learning procedures. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 26, 229–238.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • BRADLEY-JOHNSON, S., SUNDERMAN, P., & JOHNSON, C. M. (1983). Comparison of delayed prompting and fading for teaching preschoolers easily confused letters and numbers. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 327–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BROWN, C. H., & RILLING, M. H. (1975). Stimulus display and the reduction of errors in the transfer of stimulus control. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DORAN, J., & HOLLAND, J. G. (1979). Control by stimulus features during fading. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 177–187.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • EGELAND, B. (1975). Effects of errorless training on teaching children to discriminate letters of the alphabet. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 533–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETZEL, B. C., & LeBLANC, J. M. (1979). The simplest treatment alternative: The law of Parsimony applied to choosing appropriate instructional control and errorless-learning procedures to the difficult-to-teach child. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9, 361–382.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • KOEGEL, R. L., & LOVAAS, O.I. (1978). Comments on autism and stimulus overselectivity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 5, 563–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KOEGEL, R. L., & RINCOVER, A. (1976). Some detrimental effects of using extra stimuli to guide learning in normal and autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 59–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LANCIONI, G. E., & SMEETS, P. M. (1986). Procedures and parameters of errorless discrimination training with developmentally impaired individuals. In N. R. Ellis & N. W. Bray (Eds.), International review of research in mental retardation-Volume 14 (pp. 135–164). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MacDONALL, J., & MARCUCELLA, H. (1976). Cross-modal transfer of stimulus control in the albino-rat: A stimulus-display procedure. Animal Learning and Behavior, 4, 341–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NELSON, D. L., GERGENTI, E., & HOLLANDER, A. C. (1980). Extra prompts versus no extra prompts in self-care training of autistic children and adolescents. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10, 311–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • RICHMOND, G., & BELL, J. (1983). Comparison of three methods to train a size discrimination with profoundly mentally retarded students. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 574–576.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • RINCOVER, A. (1978). Variables affecting stimulus fading and discrimination responding in psychotic children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 541–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SAUNDERS, R. R., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1985). A systematic analysis of transfer of control in the delayed prompt procedure. Paper presented at the Association of Behavior Analysis Convention, Columbus, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCHREIBMAN, L. (1975). Effects of within-stimulus and extra-stimulus prompts on discrimination learning in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 91–112.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • SCHREIBMAN, L., & CHARLOP, M. H. (1981). S + versus S — fading in prompting procedures with autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 508–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SCHREIBMAN, L., CHARLOP, M. H., & KOEGEL, R. L. (1982). Teaching autistic children to use extra-stimulus prompts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 475–491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SMEETS, P. M., HOOGEVEEN, F. R., STRIEFEL, S., & LANCIONI, G. E. (1985). Stimulus overselectivity in Tmr children: Establishing functional control of simultaneous multiple stimuli. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 247–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SMEETS, P. M., & LANCIONI, G. E. (1981). The efficacy of three procedures for teaching easy and difficult discriminations in severely retarded adolescents. Behavior Research of Severe Developmental Disabilities, 2, 191–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • SMEETS, P. M., LANCIONI, G. E., & HOOGEVEEN, F. R. (1984). Effects of different stimulus manipulations on the acquisition of word recognition in trainable mentally retarded children. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 28, 109–122.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SMEETS, P. M., LANCIONI, G. E., STRIEFEL, S., & CURFS, P. G. M. (1986). Establishing a difficult discrimination through time delay: Are the dimensions of the prompts critical? Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • SMEETS, P. M., & STRIEFEL, S. (1976a). Acquisition of sign reading by transfer of stimulus control in a retarded deaf girl. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 20, 197–205.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SMEETS, P. M., & STRIEFEL, S. (1976b). Acquisition and cross modal generalization of receptive and expressive signing skills in a retarded deaf girl. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 20, 251–260.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SPRADLIN, J. E. (1985). Delayed prompts: Problems in replication. Paper presented at the Association of Behavior Analysis Convention, Columbus, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • STRIEFEL, S., BRYAN, K. S., & AIKINS, D. (1974). Transfer of stimulus control from motor to verbal stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 123–135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • STRIEFEL, S., WETHERBY, B., & KARLAN, G. R. (1976). Establishing generalized verb-noun instruction-following skills in retarded children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 247–260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • TOUCHETTE, P. (1968). The effect of graduated stimulus change on the acquisition of a simple discrimination in severely retarded boys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 39–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • TOUCHETTE, P. (1971). Transfer of stimulus control: Measuring the moment of transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 347–354.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • TOUCHETTE, P., & HOWARD, J. S. (1984). Errorless learning: Reinforcement contingencies and stimulus control transfer in delayed prompting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 175–188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • WOLFE, V. F., & CUVO, A. J. (1978). Effects of within-stimulus and extra-stimulus prompting on letter discrimination by mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 297–303.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Leiden, Hooigracht 15, 2312 KM, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Paul M. Smeets & Giulio E. Lancioni

  2. Utah State University, USA

    Sebastian Striefel

Authors
  1. Paul M. Smeets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giulio E. Lancioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastian Striefel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Appreciation is expressed to Tjeerd Anema, Pierre Kemmere, Trudie Klooster, and Jeltje van der Steen for their assistance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smeets, P.M., Lancioni, G.E. & Striefel, S. Discrimination Training Through Time Delay of Multistimulus Prompts: The Shapes and Locations of the Prompts. Psychol Rec 37, 507–521 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394996

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394996

Search

Navigation