University of Massachusetts Medical School - Shriver Center, 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545, USA.
J Exp Anal Behav. 2010 Nov;94(3):297-313. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2010.94-297.
Restricted stimulus control refers to discrimination learning with atypical limitations in the range of controlling stimuli or stimulus features. In the study reported here, 4 normally capable individuals and 10 individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) performed two-sample delayed matching to sample. Sample-stimulus observing was recorded with an eye-tracking apparatus. High accuracy scores indicated stimulus control by both sample stimuli for the 4 nondisabled participants and 4 participants with ID, and eye tracking data showed reliable observing of all stimuli. Intermediate accuracy scores indicated restricted stimulus control for the remaining 6 participants. Their eye-tracking data showed that errors were related to failures to observe sample stimuli and relatively brief observing durations. Five of these participants were then given interventions designed to improve observing behavior. For 4 participants, the interventions resulted initially in elimination of observing failures, increased observing durations, and increased accuracy. For 2 of these participants, contingencies sufficient to maintain adequate observing were not always sufficient to maintain high accuracy; subsequent procedure modifications restored it, however. For the 5th participant, initial improvements in observing were not accompanied by improved accuracy, an apparent instance of observing without attending; accuracy improved only after an additional intervention that imposed contingencies on observing behavior. Thus, interventions that control observing behavior seem necessary but may not always be sufficient for the remediation of restricted stimulus control.
限制刺激控制是指在控制刺激或刺激特征的范围上存在非典型限制的辨别学习。在本报告的研究中,4 名正常能力的个体和 10 名智力障碍(ID)个体进行了双样本延迟匹配样本任务。使用眼动追踪设备记录样本-刺激观察。高准确率表明,对于 4 名非残疾参与者和 4 名 ID 参与者来说,两个样本刺激都可以进行刺激控制,并且眼动追踪数据显示对所有刺激的可靠观察。中等准确率表明其余 6 名参与者的刺激控制受到限制。他们的眼动追踪数据表明,错误与未能观察样本刺激和相对较短的观察时间有关。然后,对其中 5 名参与者进行了旨在改善观察行为的干预。对于 4 名参与者,干预最初消除了观察失败,增加了观察时间,并提高了准确性。对于其中 2 名参与者来说,维持足够观察的条件并不总是足以维持高准确性;然而,随后的程序修改恢复了它。对于第 5 名参与者来说,观察方面的初步改进并没有伴随着准确性的提高,这显然是一种不注意的观察;只有在对观察行为施加了条件的额外干预之后,准确性才提高。因此,控制观察行为的干预似乎是必要的,但对于限制刺激控制的矫正可能并不总是足够的。