Concepts can be taught by presenting examples and nonexamples and giving the learner feedback on whether they accurately identify the examples, but it is not clear how to select examples and nonexamples. Specifically, the degree to which examples and nonexamples should differ is unknown. Six experiments were conducted to compare conceptual learning for four stimulus sets (three sets of arbitrary stimuli and one set of biological stimuli) across up to three practice conditions: (a) nonexamples that were relatively similar to the examples, (b) nonexamples that were relatively dissimilar to the examples, and (c) examples only. Conceptual learning was measured before and after practice using tests with examples and nonexamples that were not used during practice. Including nonexamples in practice increased the likelihood of conceptual learning relative to including only examples. Using nonexamples that were more similar to the examples resulted in the most robust conceptual learning. Adding new but conceptually irrelevant features to the testing stimuli disrupted conceptual learning but less so when the practice included nonexamples that were more similar to the examples. The efficacy and efficiency of instruction for conceptual learning were affected by features of the stimuli used to practice and test conceptual learning.

Problems related to "self-control" can occur in situations in which a single choice produces both reinforcing and aversive consequences. We exposed rats to choice situations in which a press on one lever produced only food and a press on a second lever produced food and delayed shock. Within and across conditions of four experiments, adjusting-delay procedures were used to identify indifference points-delays at which the consequences produced by the two levers exerted equal control over choice. Experiment 1 investigated the effects of intensity and duration of delayed shock on choice between a small food reinforcer or a large food reinforcer followed by delayed shock. Experiment 3 investigated the effects of shock's delay on choice between food delivered immediately and followed by delayed shock or food delivered after a delay. Experiments 2 and 4 investigated the effects of signaling the delayed shock in Experiments 1 and 3, respectively. The effects of delayed shock on choice were a direct function of shock intensity and shock duration and an inverse function of shock's delay. Signals did not affect choice systematically. The results extend findings from research on the punishment of operant behavior and on the temporal discounting of reinforcing and punishing events.

As a task force appointed by the Executive Council of the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), we investigated the clinical use of contingent electric skin shock (CESS) in behavior analytic treatments for severe problem behavior. We studied how CESS is used in contemporary behavior analysis, reinforcement-based alternatives to CESS, and current ethical and professional guidelines for applied behavior analysts. We recommended that ABAI uphold clients' right to receive CESS when it is restricted to extreme cases and used under rigorous professional and legal oversight. Our recommendation was rejected by a vote of the full members of ABAI, who instead endorsed an alternative recommendation, developed by members of the Executive Council, that opposed the use of CESS under any condition. Here we present for the record our report and initial recommendations, the formal statement that was rejected by the members of ABAI, and the statement that was endorsed.

Discriminable transitions from relatively favorable schedules of reinforcement to unfavorable schedules (rich-lean transitions) can produce disruptions in operant behavior. A prior evaluation in our laboratory (Toegel et al., 2021) found that placing a border around a key displayed on a resistive touchscreen increased pigeons’ response accuracy relative to conditions without the border. We sought to evaluate (a) whether effects of the key border on accuracy could be replicated in a within-session comparison and (b) whether transitions from a response alternative associated with accurate responding to one associated with inaccurate responding functioned as rich-lean transitions. Pigeons’ key pecks were reinforced according to a two-component multiple schedule with identical fixed-ratio (FR) requirements and reinforcer magnitudes. The components differed based on whether the virtual key was displayed behind a border or with no border. In line with prior research, within-session comparisons yielded higher response accuracy in components with the key border than in components without the border. Furthermore, transitions from the border component to the no border component functioned as rich-lean transitions for pigeons whose obtained FRs in no border components were substantially larger than the FR programmed in that component.

Use of contingent electric skin shock in the treatment of severe problem behavior has been criticized on the grounds that (a) it is not necessary because function-based procedures using positive reinforcement are just as effective; (b) it violates contemporary ethical standards; and (c) it lacks social validity. There are good reasons to challenge these claims. The meaning of “severe problem behavior” is imprecise and we should be cautious in our claims about how to treat it. It is not clear that reinforcement-only procedures are sufficient because they are commonly paired with psychotropic medication, and there is evidence that some instances of severe behavior may be refractory to reinforcement-only procedures. Ethical standards, as expressed by the Behavior Analysis Certification Board and the Association for Behavior Analysis International, do not prohibit punishment procedures. Social validity is a complex concept that can be understood and measured in multiple, potentially conflicting ways. Because we still have a lot to learn about these matters, we should be more skeptical of sweeping claims such as the three enumerated above.

In this article, the authors provide their response to the Association for Behavior Analysis International (2022) position statement on the use of contingent electric skin shock (CESS). In this response, we address concerns raised by the task force regarding limitations of the Zarcone et al. (2020) review article in which both methodological and ethical concerns were raised about the quality of research in the use of CESS with people with disabilities in the treatment of challenging behavior. We note that with the exception of the Judge Rotenberg Center in Massachusetts, no state or country currently supports the use of CESS as it is not recognized as the standard of care in any other program, school, or facility.

Seven experiments with rats assessed the aversiveness of timeout using punishment and avoidance procedures. Experiments 1 and 2 considered the contributions of stimulus change, suspending the response-reinforcer contingency, response prevention, the general disruption in the reinforcement schedule during time-in, and overall decreases in reinforcement. Results support the conclusion that response-contingent timeouts punish behavior because they are signaled periods during which an ongoing schedule of positive reinforcement is suspended. Experiments 3, 4, and 5 assessed effects of the reinforcement rate during time-in on the punitive efficacy of timeout and, for comparison, electric shock. Evidence for a direct relation between reinforcement rate and punitive efficacy was equivocal. In Experiments 6 and 7, responding avoided timeout from response-independent food deliveries. Responding was acquired rapidly when it avoided timeouts from free deliveries of pellets or a sucrose solution, but not when it avoided free deliveries of water. At steady-state, avoidance rates and proficiency were directly related to the rate of pellet or sucrose deliveries. The relation between the nature of the time-in environment and the aversiveness of timeout was clear in our avoidance experiments, but not in our punishment experiments. We discuss interpretive problems in evaluating the aversiveness of timeout in the punishment paradigm.

Transitions between tasks can produce behavioral disruptions that are characterized as problematic. Advance notice, a procedure designed to reduce disruptions, involves presenting a stimulus to warn of the end of the ongoing activity and the nature of the upcoming activity. Clinical evaluations of advance notice have produced mixed results. We studied advance notice in a controlled laboratory setting. Pigeons' keypecking was maintained on a multiple schedule with 2 fixed-ratio components. In the lean component, completing the ratio produced brief access to food; in the rich component, completing the ratio produced longer access. Disruptions in operant behavior, measured as pauses in pecking, were reliably produced in the transition from a rich component to a lean one. Advance notice was provided by flashing the houselight before transitions to lean components. Advance notice did not reduce pausing in the rich-lean transition; instead, it tended to increase it. When the flashing houselight warned of a transition but was equally likely to be followed by the rich component as the lean one, the stimulus had no reliable effect on pausing. Despite its limitations as a translational model of clinical settings, this experiment suggests that clinical use of advance notice should be approached with caution.

Abstract Ultrasound (US) is gaining wider acceptance for the diagnosis of musculoskeletal pathology by both radiologist and non-radiologist clinicians in urgent or emergent settings. Part of the growth of US can be attributed to its portability, relative low cost compared to other imaging modalities, lack of radiation, and the capacity to make a rapid diagnosis in experienced hands. Bedside US enables faster decision making and expedited patient care. As training programs further integrate musculoskeletal US into their diagnostic imaging education, US utilization and breadth of application will only increase. This paper highlights some of the benefits, applications, and potential pitfalls of the sonographic diagnosis of common urgent musculoskeletal conditions that present to the emergency department.

We developed a touchscreen apparatus for pigeons and conducted a series of experiments that assessed its utility for free-operant procedures. The apparatus incorporated an on-board Windows computer, an electromechanical interface, an amplified speaker, and the touchscreen. We found that merely projecting a virtual key on the screen was insufficient; too many pecks missed the key. Adding a visual target in the center of the key and providing visual feedback for on-key pecks both failed to improve response accuracy. Accuracy was improved by imposing a timeout after off-key pecks or providing a physical boundary around the key. With the physical boundary, response accuracy was comparable to that obtained with conventional plastic keys, and response acquisition via autoshaping also was comparable. Mixing the color elements of the screen's pixels produced color stimuli, but the colors did not function as pure wavelengths of light in tests of stimulus generalization. Both colors and geometric shapes functioned as discriminative stimuli in multiple schedules with variable-interval and extinction components or rich and lean fixed-ratio components. In general, our touchscreen apparatus is a viable alternative to conventional pigeon chambers and increases the experimenter's options for visual stimuli, auditory stimuli, and the number and location of response keys.

This chapter discusses a brief historical introduction to single-subject designs and an exposition of the major characteristics of these designs. It also discusses some applications in developmental research. Reviews of the historical development of research methods in psychology have shown that single-subject designs have been used since the very beginning of scientific psychology. The chapter shows that emphasis has been placed on the functions and importance of experimental control. Single-subject designs are well suited for the experimental analysis of behavior. The chapter focuses on the characteristics by providing a more detailed account of single-subject research as it is practiced within experimental areas of psychology. While the validity of single-subject designs is decidedly imperfect, many of the criticisms that have been directed toward such designs also apply to group designs. The requirement for comparisons between subjects—for example, between younger and older men—would appear to be at odds with a purely single-subject design.

If one takes seriously B.F. Skinner's contention that the science of behavior is inherently far-reaching, then the scholars in our field who make the best role models are those with appropriately expansive interests and contributions.One such role model, James G. (Jim) Holland, passed away on January 16, 2018.Jim (Figure 1) may be best remembered for co-authoring with B.F. Skinner a seminal programmed instruction manual, The Analysis of Behavior (1961; soon to be reprinted by the B

Worries about the reproducibility of experiments in the behavioral and social sciences arise from evidence that many published reports contain false positive results. Misunderstanding and misuse of statistical procedures are key sources of false positives. In behavior analysis, however, statistical procedures have not been used much. Instead, the investigator must show that the behavior of an individual is consistent over time within an experimental condition, that the behavior changes systematically across conditions, and that these changes can be reproduced – and then the whole pattern must be shown in additional individuals. These high standards of within- and between-subject replication protect behavior analysis from the publication of false positive findings. When a properly designed and executed experiment fails to replicate a previously published finding, the failure exposes flaws in our understanding of the phenomenon under study – perhaps in recognizing the boundary conditions of the phenomenon, identifying the relevant variables, or bringing the variables under sufficient control. We must accept the contradictory findings as valid and pursue an experimental analysis of the possible reasons. In this way, we resolve the contradiction and advance our science. To illustrate, two research programs are described, each initiated because of a replication failure.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of BehaviorVolume 107, Issue 1 p. 1-8 Editorial Alan Baron: A pioneer in translational science Michael Perone, Corresponding Author Michael Perone Michael.Perone@mail.wvu.edu West Virginia UniversityCorresponding Author: Michael Perone, Dept. of Psychology, West Virginia University, 53 Campus Dr., Morgantown, WV 26506–6040; Michael.Perone@mail.wvu.eduSearch for more papers by this authorDean C. Williams, Dean C. Williams University of KansasSearch for more papers by this authorMark Galizio, Mark Galizio University of North Carolina WilmingtonSearch for more papers by this author Michael Perone, Corresponding Author Michael Perone Michael.Perone@mail.wvu.edu West Virginia UniversityCorresponding Author: Michael Perone, Dept. of Psychology, West Virginia University, 53 Campus Dr., Morgantown, WV 26506–6040; Michael.Perone@mail.wvu.eduSearch for more papers by this authorDean C. Williams, Dean C. Williams University of KansasSearch for more papers by this authorMark Galizio, Mark Galizio University of North Carolina WilmingtonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 19 January 2017 https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.240 This article is dedicated to the memory and enduring legacy of Alan Baron, our teacher and mentor, colleague and friend. We thank the authors whose scientific papers constitute this special issue in Alan's honor. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume107, Issue1January 2017Pages 1-8 RelatedInformation

On multiple fixed-ratio schedules, pausing is extended at the start of a component ending in a small reinforcer (a lean component) but only when this component follows a component ending in a large reinforcer (a rich component). In two experiments, we assessed whether a stimulus correlated with a lean component is aversive and how its function is affected by the preceding component. In Experiment 1, pigeons responded on mixed fixed-ratio schedules ending in large or small reinforcers. Observing responses converted the mixed schedule to a multiple one by producing a stimulus correlated with the current component. Overall, the lean stimulus did not suppress observing, suggesting that it was not sufficiently aversive. In Experiment 2, an escape procedure was used, and pigeons could convert a multiple schedule to a mixed one by pecking a key to remove the discriminative stimuli. Pigeons escaped from the lean-schedule stimulus more than they did from the rich one. For two pigeons, this effect was enhanced when a rich component preceded the lean stimulus. The results indicate that a stimulus correlated with the leaner of two reinforcement schedules can acquire aversive functions, but observing and escape procedures may differ in their abilities to detect this effect.

Although response-dependent shock often suppresses responding, response facilitation can occur. In two experiments, we examined the suppressive and facilitative effects of shock by manipulating shock intensity and the interresponse times that produced shock. Rats' lever presses were reinforced on a variable-interval 40-s schedule of food presentation. Shock followed either long or short interresponse times. Shock intensity was raised from 0.05 mA to 0.4 mA or 0.8 mA. Overall, shock contingent on long interresponse times punished long interresponse times and increased response rates. Shock contingent on short interresponse times punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates. In Experiment 1, raising the range of interresponse times that produced shock enhanced these effects. In Experiment 2, the effects of shock intensity depended on the interresponse times that produced shock. When long interresponse times produced shock, low intensities increased response rates. High intensities decreased response rates. When short interresponse times produced shock, high shock intensities punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates more than low intensities. The results may explain why punishment procedures occasionally facilitate responding and establish parameters for future studies of punishment.

Rats responded on concurrent schedules of shock-postponement or deletion (avoidance) and timeout from avoidance. In Experiment 1, 3 rats' responses on one lever postponed shocks for 20 s and responses on a second lever produced a 1-min timeout according to a variable-interval 45-s schedule. Across conditions, a warning signal (white noise) was presented 19.5 s, 16 s, 12 s, 8 s, or 4 s before an impending shock. Raising the duration of the warning signal increased both avoidance and timeout response rates. Timeout responding, although positively correlated with avoidance responding, was not correlated with the prevailing shock rate. In Experiment 2, 3 rats' responses on one lever deleted scheduled shocks according to a variable-cycle 30-s schedule and responses on a second lever produced a 2-min timeout as described above. After this baseline condition, the avoidance lever was removed and noncontingent shocks were delivered at intervals yoked to the receipt of shocks in the baseline sessions. Timeout responding decreased when the avoidance lever was removed, even though the shock-frequency reduction afforded by the timeout remained constant. These results suggest that a key factor in the reinforcing efficacy of timeout is suspension of the requirement to work to avoid shock, rather than the reduction in shock frequency associated with timeout.

A signaled timeeut fnom an avoidance contingency has been shewn te neinf orce behavier when pregnammed en vanious intenmittent schedules, but most contemporary studies confeund the timeeut with sheck-pestpenement: After each timeeut, the aveidance centingency is restanted at the beginning of the nesponse-sheck interval, as if an aveidance response had eccunred. Tha present expeniment assessed the centnibution of this intenmittant aveidance function te the maintenance of the response leading te timeeut. In baseline cenditiens, rats’ presses en ene leven postponed sheck fer 30 s while presses en anothen leven pneduced, accerding to a variable-interval schedule, a 90-s timeeut duning which the shock-pestponement schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli were removed. At the end of the timeout, the shock-postpenement schedule was reset te the beginning of the 30-s response-sheck intenval. In the experimental cenditien, the timeeut duration was neduced te Os, se that satisfying the VI schedule merely resetthe respense-shock interval. Responding en the aveidance leven was maintained threugheut the expeniment. Respending en the timeout ayer was maintained unden baseline cenditiens, but net when the timeeut was reduced Loo s. These nesults establish that respending en the timeout levar was maintained by the timeeut, not by the sheck-pestpenement that fellewed it, and that the cenfound pnesant in se many studies of timeout from aveidance may be safely disneganded.

We conducted three experiments to reproduce and extend Perone and Courtney's (1992) study of pausing at the beginning of fixed-ratio schedules. In a multiple schedule with unequal amounts of food across two components, they found that pigeons paused longest in the component associated with the smaller amount of food (the lean component), but only when it was preceded by the rich component. In our studies, adults with mild intellectual disabilities responded on a touch-sensitive computer monitor to produce money. In Experiment 1, the multiple-schedule components differed in both response requirement and reinforcer magnitude (i.e., the rich component required fewer responses and produced more money than the lean component). Effects shown with pigeons were reproduced in all 7 participants. In Experiment 2, we removed the stimuli that signaled the two schedule components, and participants' extended pausing was eliminated. In Experiment 3, to assess sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude versus fixed-ratio size, we presented conditions with equal ratio sizes but disparate magnitudes and conditions with equal magnitudes but disparate ratio sizes. Sensitivity to these manipulations was idiosyncratic. The present experiments obtained schedule control in verbally competent human participants and, despite procedural differences, we reproduced findings with animal participants. We showed that pausing is jointly determined by past conditions of reinforcement and stimuli correlated with upcoming conditions.

Galizio (1999) reported that responding that produced a timeout from avoidance was more resistant to extinction than avoidance responding itself. The present study sought to extend this finding. Six times during each session, a signaled fixed-ratio 10 schedule was superimposed on a variable-cycle 60-s shock deletion schedule. By completing the ratio, rats produced a signaled 5- or 8-min timeout. Response rates maintained by avoidance and timeout were compared by analyzing responding during each FR presentation (timeout) and in the 5-min period before it (avoidance). Resistance to change was assessed by (a) increasing the variable-cycle parameter from 60 s to 120 s (Experiment 1), and (b) shock-omission extinction (Experiment 2). In both cases, timeout responding was more resistant to change than avoidance responding.