Systematic application and removal of protective equipment in the assessment of multiple topographies of self-injury.

The team put soft pads on a child who hit himself in several ways. They kept the gear on until each form of self-hit stopped. Then they took the pads off one body part at a time.

They watched which self-hit came back when only that spot was bare. This let them test if the pads work by blocking sensory payoff.

All self-injury stayed near zero while the child wore full pads. When they removed pads from just the head, only head hitting returned. The other forms stayed quiet.

The same pattern held for each body part. Selective removal proved the pads act as sensory extinction, not just general restraint.

Rayfield et al. (1982) and Luiselli (1986) already showed that gear plus rewards cuts self-injury. Fisher et al. (2004) sharpened the tool by proving each pad targets only its own topography.

Matson et al. (1994) looked like a clash. They said oven mitts work through punishment, not extinction. The gap is method: they put mitts on after the bite, so the brief delay created a timeout. W et al. kept the gear on continuously, blocking the feel of the hit—true extinction.

Wilkinson et al. (1998) found noncontingent reinforcement beat sensory extinction for speed. W et al. do not argue; they simply show how to make extinction precise when you choose to use it.

You now have a map. Pad every active topography, then peel them off one by one. The form that re-appears is the one maintained by its own sensory feedback. You can pair that spot with extra treatment—differential reinforcement, response blocking, or NCR—while leaving other pads in place. This cuts trial-and-error and keeps the client safe.