A comparison of noncontingent reinforcement and sensory extinction as treatments for self-injurious behavior.
Free toys beat protective gear for speed, but pair them to stop the behavior from coming back.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with children who hurt themselves for sensory feedback.
They tested two fixes: give free toys all day (NCR) or block the feeling with helmets and padding (sensory extinction).
Each child tried both in a multiple-baseline design.
What they found
Both plans cut self-injury.
Free toys worked faster and dropped the behavior lower than the protective gear.
How this fits with other research
Saini et al. (2017) later showed that free toys alone can make the behavior pop back later.
Adding extinction (like the helmets) keeps the gains.
Jones et al. (1998) added picture cards and warnings to the same two tactics and also saw good results.
The 1998 pair together tell us: start with free toys for quick relief, keep the gear handy to prevent relapse.
Why it matters
You can quiet automatically reinforced SIB today by giving continuous access to a highly preferred item.
Keep sensory blocking gear ready and plan for extinction bursts so the behavior stays down tomorrow.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place a favorite sensory toy in the child’s lap before session starts and keep the helmet within reach.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We compared the effects of two treatments, noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and sensory extinction (EXT), on the self-injurious behavior (SIB) exhibited by 3 individuals with developmental disabilities. Results of a functional analysis indicated that their SIB was not maintained by social reinforcement, as indicated by undifferentiated responding across assessment conditions or higher rates of responding in the along condition. Prior to treatment, leisure probes were conducted to identify highly preferred items for use in the NCR condition, and equipment probes were conducted to identify devices that produced the greatest behavioral suppression for use in the EXT condition. Following baseline, treatment was implemented in a multiple baseline across subjects design, and the effects of NCR and EXT were compared in a multielement format. During NCR sessions, participants had continuous access to a highly preferred item. During EXT sessions, participants wore equipment (gloves or protective sleeves) that seemed to attenuate stimulation directly produced by their SIB, while still allowing the behavior to occur. Results indicated that both procedures were effective in reducing SIB, although NCR was associated with either more rapid or greater overall response suppression.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1998 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1998.31-635