ABA Fundamentals

Shaping by automated tracking of an arbitrary operant response.

Pear et al. (1987) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1987
★ The Verdict

Automated millimeter tracking can shape any small move without you touching the feeder.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who want tight, hands-free shaping in clinic or classroom.
✗ Skip if RBTs running table-top DTT with no sensors.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Three pigeons wore tiny sensors on their heads. A computer watched every move.

When a bird’s head got close to a 3 cm sphere, the machine dropped food. The gap needed shrank bit by bit. No human clicked a feeder.

02

What they found

All three birds learned to bonk the sphere in minutes. The rig shaped a brand-new move with millimeter accuracy.

03

How this fits with other research

Vostanis et al. (2024) took the same idea into a kindergarten. They used auto-tracking to teach autistic kids to look where a classmate pointed. Birds or children — the code still rewards closer and closer tries.

Shih et al. (2010) did it with cursors. Adults with developmental disabilities earned tokens when two mice met on screen. Again, the computer set the bar, not the teacher.

Szempruch et al. (1993) ran an earlier pigeon lab. Their box auto-advanced trials but still needed hand-made lesson plans. The 1987 gear closed the loop: sense, judge, and pay in real time.

04

Why it matters

If you can track it, you can shape it. Head angle, eye shift, finger hover — any micro-movement becomes a target. Let the software tighten the rule while you watch data. Free hands, sharp timing, and one-to-one precision for every client.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Pick one micro-response you always miss (eye contact, pinky lift). Film it free, let a tracker score closeness, and drop a token when the score beats the last best.

02At a glance

Intervention
shaping
Design
single case other
Sample size
3
Population
not specified
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Although shaping is a widely accepted operant-conditioning procedure for establishing new responses, technological problems involved in specifying and recording precise approximations to the target response have hindered experimental analysis of the shaping process. The present study used a computer-controlled system that allows relatively precise procedural specification by continuous tracking of a pigeon's head and reinforcing successively closer approximations to contact of the head with an arbitrary fixed spherical region of 3-cm diameter. The procedure was demonstrated to be effective, in that shaping of the target response occurred rapidly for each of the 3 birds in the study.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1987 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1987.47-241