Transcript Operant Learning and Habituation in Infants

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.