Temporal regulation of children with autism spectrum disorder exposed to a differential‐reinforcement‐of low‐rates schedule
Autistic preschoolers can learn to slow responding under DRL, but kids with higher IQ and language adjust better.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Gaucher’s team worked with four preschoolers who had autism.
They used a DRL schedule. DRL means the child had to wait before pressing a button again.
Kids earned a toy if they waited five or twenty seconds between presses. The researchers watched if the children learned to slow down.
What they found
All four children did wait more, but the gains were small and shaky.
Children with higher IQ and better language improved more.
The twenty-second rule worked a little better than the five-second rule.
How this fits with other research
Pubylski-Yanofchick et al. (2022) also used differential reinforcement, but with an adult and food. They saw big, fast gains. The adult simply got fries for tasting veggies.
The adult study shows DR can work quickly when the reinforcer is clear and the learner is verbal. Gaucher’s preschoolers had weaker language, so timing was harder.
May (2019) tested DR in a classroom. Like Gaucher, May saw that language level changes how well DR works. Together, the papers say: check language and IQ before you pick a DR plan.
Why it matters
If you want to cut rapid button-pressing or any fast motor stereotopy, DRL can help. First give a quick language screen. Kids who score low may need extra prompts or a shorter wait time. Start with five seconds, then stretch. Pair the rule with visual timers and clear praise so the child knows exactly when the wait is over.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 5-minute language probe, then try a 5-s DRL with a visual timer and praise for each successful wait.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study investigated temporal adjustment of children with autism spectrum disorder under a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates (DRL) schedule. Sixteen participants, aged 3.2 to 7 years, were exposed to two conditions, DRL 5 s and DRL 20 s. Children participated in 7 sessions in each condition, except for 1 participant who attained the adjustment criteria in the DRL 5-s schedule. Temporal adjustment was measured with the proportion of reinforced interresponse times (IRTs) and the mean IRT. The operant response was a press on a touch screen and the reinforcers were cartoons. IQ and receptive language were measured prior to the DRL sessions. Results showed that the mean proportion of reinforced IRTs was slightly higher in the DRL 5-s schedule. The mean IRT was above the IRT requirement in both conditions. However, substantial individual variability was observed. Children with higher IQ and receptive language scores presented a greater proportion of reinforced IRTs in both conditions. Moreover, participants who adjusted their responses to the DRL 5-s schedule were more likely to adjust responding to the DRL 20-s schedule. This suggests that some children might be more sensitive to reinforcement contingencies than others. This study points at future research in the field of timing in children.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jeab.592