Sensory extinction and sensory reinforcement principles for programming multiple adaptive behavior change.
Block the sensory payoff from self-stim, then give toys that deliver the same payoff to build lasting appropriate play.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with children who had developmental delays. Each child spent long periods in self-stim behavior that gave its own sensory payoff.
The researchers first removed the payoff. They blocked the sound, feel, or sight that the behavior produced. Next they gave toys that gave the same feel or sound. They used an ABAB reversal design to show the change was real.
What they found
When the sensory payoff stopped, self-stim dropped sharply. The same sensory feel or sound later made good toy play rise.
The new play kept going even after extra reinforcers were removed. One procedure cut problem behavior and built a new skill at the same time.
How this fits with other research
Wilkie et al. (1981) conceptually replicated the idea. They showed vibration, music, and strobe lights work as well as food or praise for teaching language.
Osnes et al. (1986) extended the same logic to prevocational work. A teen earned brief object self-stim breaks and his work rate rose while stereotypy fell.
Li et al. (2025) used response-stimulus pairing instead of extinction. They also saw more toy play and less stereotypy in autistic preschoolers. The 1979 sensory-redirection idea holds across ages, tasks, and methods.
Why it matters
You can turn the very thing that fuels self-stim into fuel for learning. First block the payoff to cut the problem behavior. Then pick toys or tasks that give the same sound, feel, or light to build new skills. Start with a quick assessment of what sensory consequence the child seeks. Use simple barriers or mufflers during extinction, and keep the new item close at hand. The same sensory principle works for play, work, and language targets.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Cover the speaker on a musical toy the child spins, then hand the same toy for five seconds each time the child stacks a block.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The role of sensory reinforcement was examined in programming multiple treatment gains in self-stimulation and spontaneous play for developmentally disabled children. Two phases were planned. First, we attempted to identify reinforcers maintaining self-stimulation. Sensory Extinction procedures were implemented in which auditory, proprioceptive, or visual sensory consequences of self-stimulatory behavior were systematically removed and reintroduced in a reversal design. When self-stimulation was decreased or eliminated as a result of removing one of these sensory consequences, the functional sensory consequence was designated as a child's preferred sensory reinforcer. In Phase 2, we assessed whether children would play selectively with toys producing the preferred kind of sensory stimulation. The results showed the following. (1) Self-stimulatory behavior was found to be maintained by sensory reinforcement. When the sensory reinforcer was removed, self-stimulation extinguished. (2) The sensory reinforcers identified for self-stimulatory behavior also served as reinforcers for new, appropriate toy play. (3) The multiple treatment gains observed appeared to be relatively durable in the absence of external reinforcers for play or restraints on self-stimulation. These results illustrate one instance in which multiple behavior change may be programmed in a predictable, lawful fashion by using "natural communities of sensory reinforcement."
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1979 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1979.12-221