Comparison of simple and complex auditory-visual conditional discrimination training.

Polo-López et al. (2014) compared two ways to teach receptive labels to autistic and neurotypical children. One group got simple training: hear the word 'apple' and pick the apple picture. The other group got complex training: hear 'apple' and pick the apple only when the foil pictures were also fruits.

Kids rotated through both styles in an alternating-treatments design. The team tracked how fast each child learned and whether new untaught word-picture links popped up later.

Both styles created the same number of emergent, untrained relations. Simple training took fewer trials to reach mastery, but the edge was small. Generalization to new pictures and long-term maintenance was spotty for both groups.

Autistic kids showed the same pattern as typical peers: simple was faster, yet gains faded for everyone.

Kodak et al. (2022) say slow scanning predicts AVCD failure. Rocío did not pre-screen scanning, which may explain why some kids struggled even with the 'easier' simple method.

Hartley et al. (2014) ran a similar word-picture equivalence study the same year. They found autistic preschoolers over-glued labels to color cues. Rocío saw the same shaky generalization, confirming the color-over-shape bias is real.

Tullis et al. (2021) added instructive feedback and got solid emergent intraverbals. Rocío used no extra feedback, possibly why their generalization stayed mixed.

If you skip a quick scanning check, even the 'simple' route can stall. Run Kodak's 10-minute assessment first; if the child can't reliably scan an array, train that skill or use smaller sets. When you do start, add brief instructive feedback—like naming the category—to boost the odds that the new words stick beyond the table.