Stimulus presentation order in receptive identification tasks: A systematic replication.

Conflicting recommendations exist in the literature regarding the optimal order of stimulus presentation when teaching auditory-visual conditional discriminations. The present study examined the generality of a previously demonstrated advantage of presenting the auditory sample before visual comparisons (sample-first condition) over the reverse sequence (comparison-first condition). Participants were four typically developing 5- and 6-year-old boys. The procedures of Petursdottir and Aguilar (2016) were systematically replicated with the addition of a prompted error correction trial following each incorrect response. Overall, there were more instances of quicker mastery in the sample-first condition (four of seven evaluations) than in the comparison-first condition (two of seven evaluations). A comparison-first advantage was associated with slower acquisition in both conditions than in the remaining evaluations, and an analysis of stimulus and position bias yielded tentative evidence for unwanted sources of stimulus control.

Order of stimulus presentation influences children's acquisition in receptive identification tasks.

Receptive identification is usually taught in matching-to-sample format, which entails the presentation of an auditory sample stimulus and several visual comparison stimuli in each trial. Conflicting recommendations exist regarding the order of stimulus presentation in matching-to-sample trials. The purpose of this study was to compare acquisition in receptive identification tasks under 2 conditions: when the sample was presented before the comparisons (sample first) and when the comparisons were presented before the sample (comparison first). Participants included 4 typically developing kindergarten-age boys. Stimuli, which included birds and flags, were presented on a computer screen. Acquisition in the 2 conditions was compared in an adapted alternating-treatments design combined with a multiple baseline design across stimulus sets. All participants took fewer trials to meet the mastery criterion in the sample-first condition than in the comparison-first condition.