A comparison of stimulus fading and stimulus shaping on perceptual category learning.

Errorless learning strategies such as stimulus fading and stimulus shaping are commonly used to teach complex skills like categorisation and concept formation. Despite widespread use, very few studies have explored the comparative effectiveness of these procedures in well-controlled analyses. The vast majority of existing studies have been undertaken with clinical populations and have involved small numbers of participants (e.g., Single-case designs). The present study sought to compare stimulus fading, stimulus shaping, and trial-and-error learning in a perceptual categorisation task. In Experiment 1, we found robust benefits of stimulus shaping when compared to stimulus fading or trial-and-error learning on measures of initial acquisition of discrimination and one measure of stimulus generalisation. These findings were replicated in a second experiment in which the dimension of fading/shaping was changed from a modification of the comparison stimuli (S-) to a modification of the target stimulus (S +). We discuss the implications of our findings for the selection of errorless learning strategies in clinical settings.

Applications of within-stimulus errorless learning methods for teaching discrimination skills to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A systematic review.

Errorless learning is an instructional strategy used widely with individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The present systematic review aims to update the literature on the application of 'within-stimulus' errorless procedures. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018118385). Twenty-eight articles including 283 participants met the operationally defined inclusion criteria. In the majority of cases, the errorless learning procedures evaluated led to improvements in acquiring discrimination skills. Most of the reviewed studies evaluated stimulus fading. Results are discussed in relation to the selection of within-stimulus procedures. Areas identified for future research include further evaluations of other within-stimulus tactics, as well as further refinement of procedural parameters.

Evaluating Efficacy and Preference for Prompt Type During Discrete-Trial Teaching.

The components of discrete-trial teaching (DTT) may be individualized to each learner during instruction (e.g., the type of prompts used). However, there is limited research on the relative efficiency and effectiveness of these different prompt types. In addition, the learner's preference for how they are taught is not always considered. The present study compared relative effectiveness of three prompt types (i.e., a gesture, modeling, physical guidance) to a no-prompt control condition during a receptive identification task with three boys with autism. One participant met the mastery criterion first in the model prompt condition, and two participants in the physical prompt condition. All participants selected the physical prompt during a concurrent-chains preference assessment. In addition, all participants completed a chained task using the most effective prompt type.

Comparing Book- and Tablet-Based Picture Activity Schedules: Acquisition and Preference.

Picture activity schedules consist of a sequence of images representing the order of tasks for a person to complete. Although, picture activity schedules have traditionally been presented in a book format, recently picture activity schedules have been evaluated on technological devices such as an iPod™ touch. The present study compared the efficiency of picture activity schedule acquisition on book- and tablet-based modalities. In addition, participant preference for each modality was assessed. Three boys aged below 5 years with a diagnosis of autism participated. Participants were taught to follow the schedules using both modalities. Following mastery of each modality of picture activity schedule, a concurrent-chains preference assessment was conducted to evaluate participant preference for each modality. Differences in acquisition rates across the two modalities were marginal. Preference for book- or tablet-based schedules was idiosyncratic across participants.