Stimulus factors in the training of prepositional usage in three autistic children.
Begin preposition drills with objects that scream the difference, then fade to look-alikes.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Three autistic children learned to say prepositions like "in" and "on."
The team first used objects that looked very different (bowl vs. table). Later they used objects that looked almost the same (two boxes). They wanted to see which setup helped the kids get it right.
What they found
Two kids only got the words right when the objects were super clear. The third kid did better after starting with the clear set.
How this fits with other research
Tracey et al. (1974) got the same skill but in the other direction. They taught kids to follow preposition instructions instead of saying them. Both studies show the target matters less than how you set up the stuff.
Leaf et al. (2018) went further. They showed you can swap objects around in any order when you teach labels and kids still learn. Waite et al. (1972) says start clear; Leaf says once clear, rotate freely.
Feinstein et al. (1988) and Shimizu (2006) both played with stimulus control too. They used adults and mouse clicks, yet the rule stayed the same: if the learner can’t tell the items apart, new relations won’t pop out.
Why it matters
Pick your first objects like a kid’s puzzle piece: bold color, clear shape. After the child nails "in" with a bowl and "on" with a table, then bring in the tricky twins (two cups, two boxes). This tiny front-load saves you hours of error correction down the road.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place a deep bowl and a flat plate on the table; teach "in" and "on" with these before swapping in two identical boxes.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Language deficient, autistic children were trained to use the prepositions "in" and "on". Three subjects were exposed to conditions of training that differed in the method of employment of stimulus objects used to train prepositional usage. Two subjects were trained first with "ambiguous" stimuli, that is, the same stimulus objects were used for training both prepositions. The two subjects were then switched to a training condition with "non-ambiguous" stimulus objects, that is, objects used for training "in" were different than those used for training "on". The two subjects were then switched to the ambiguous stimulus condition and finally returned again to training with non-ambiguous stimuli (four conditions). A third subject began with training on non-ambiguous stimuli, was switched to an ambiguous condition and was then switched back to non-ambiguous stimuli (three conditions). The results for two of the three subjects indicated that accurate usage of the two prepositions was obtained only under training conditions with non-ambiguous stimuli. Results for the third subject suggested that initial training with non-ambiguous stimuli might enhance subsequent accurate responding with ambiguous stimuli.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1972 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1972.5-183