Catherine Taylor-Santa Caldwell College Behavior Analysis of Child Development October 2012 Review Discussion: Malcuit and Pomerleau’s chapter Studies Why the “cognitive revolution”? Operant chamber model Research Kim Kraebel Research Thoughts Habituation US presented rapidity until decrease in UR Youtube video (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 Habituation Method Conditioning Method Electrode Recording Method (Foley, 2006) 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 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 Rheingold et al. (1959) 3 months old Spontaneous vocalizations Social stimuli Increased vocalizations 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 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 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) 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 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 Experiments demonstrate generality of the principles and efficacy of techniques of operant learning…so why the “cognitive revolution”? 1. 2. Behavior analysts stuck on discrepancies between human and animals Principle characteristic of ecological reinforcers 3. Convenient qualities Seen as indicators Operant procedure Easy to implement Variety of questions on early cognitive processes answered Operant research in human learning follow operant chamber model Relevant factors may not be effectively isolated Lever Press VS. Game-like Behavior Primary Reinforcer VS. Ecological Reinforcer Controlled Environment VS. Freedom 1. 2. 3. 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 For many laboratories, learning contexts analyze in terms of exploration and problemsolving Response rates not the most appropriate way to assess if learning has taken place 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 Pomerleau et al. (1992) Single-subject designs “Non-perfect” contingency Measures Duration % of opportunities Latency measures More relevant stimuli 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) Stimulus elicits head turn and gaze orientation Habituation Signal Repeated presentations Allow infant to allocate behavioral resources to stimuli of greater relevance 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 This idea was met with resistance Informational processing model: Contains more information to be processed Functional model: More reinforcing Sort out the effect of 2 functional values of stimuli on orienting response elicitation Forty eight 4-month-olds Three conditions 1. 2. 3. Visual stimuli 12 presentations 2s visual stimulus 12 presentations 2s visual stimulus accompanied by another event Visual stimulus on synchronous schedule 4x4 checkerboard pattern 8x8 checkerboard pattern 1st pattern 2nd 2 test trials 1st 2 dishabituation trials 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 Looked at the respondent dimension of orienting response Separate respondent and operant process Respondent- Stimulus elicits head turn Operant- Head turn makes stimulus appear 4 groups of 16 4 month-olds Condition Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Description 1 stimulus a) elicits head turn, b) signals reinforcement, 3) synchronously reinforces visual exploration 1 stimulus constantly present Stimulus appears if head turns toward illuminated surface. No eliciting stimulus. SD different from the reinforcing stimulus (signaled operant) Stimulus appears if head turns to nonsignaled point in space. No eliciting stimulus. No SD. Condition Condition 1 (elic, sig, SR+) Condition 2 (const pres) Condition 3 (no elic, SD) Condition 4 (no elic, no SD) Results Stimulus looked at less than Condition 3 & 4 but more than Condition 2 Stimulus looked at the least Stimulus looked at the longest Stimulus looked at the longest Operant process, whether signaled or not, seems to be more potent in sustaining infant attention than Stimulus that is always present A stimulus whose sudden appearance triggers attention Associate Professor of Psychology at SUNY Cortland PhD in Experimental Psych- learning and memory Post-doc research at Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities in NYC Developmental perception infants 2-9 mo Infant and Child Studies Project Animal models Cognition in 3 & 5 mo infants A runner =) Amodal- information that is not specific to an individual sensory system Kraebel, 2009; Kraebel, 2012a & 2012b Kraebel et al., 2004 (computer measures) 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? Are there any questions, Ample room for more research Early autism detection other than is Multi-sensory approach this thing glued to my head? Thanks! 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. 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. 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 –dayold 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. 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. 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 continuousreinforcement 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.