The effects of presession manipulations on automatically maintained challenging behavior and task responding.

Chung et al. (2010) tested four quick warm-ups before work sessions. Each warm-up lasted three minutes. The choices were: give attention, block every problem response, give attention while blocking, or sit apart with no interaction.

All four adults had intellectual disability and their hand movements happened for their own sensory kick, not to get anything from others. The team used a multielement design, flipping the warm-ups across days to see which one helped the most.

Results were all over the map. One person did best after getting attention first. Another calmed down when the therapist blocked every move. A third worked better after sitting alone. Each participant had at least one helpful warm-up, but it was never the same one.

Correct task responses moved in the same direction as problem behavior. When a warm-up cut hand mouthing, work answers usually went up.

Elliott et al. (2026) pooled 32 studies and say matched sensory toys beat problem behavior by a medium margin. Yi-Chieh’s warm-ups never used toys, so the meta-analysis adds a missing piece: if you skip matched stimuli, you still need to test each client.

Gerow et al. (2019) went further, teaching parents to block stereotypy at home while giving a fun toy. Their toddler’s motor movements dropped. That study extends Yi-Chieh’s lab work into living rooms and adds parent power.

Martinez-Perez et al. (2024) found blocking during work cuts the target response but does not stop resurgence later. Yi-Chieh used blocking only before work, so the two papers sit side-by-side: blocking timing matters, yet neither method guards against future spikes.

Before you pick a warm-up, run a mini probe with each client. Three minutes of attention, three minutes of blocking, three minutes of silence. Graph the next ten minutes of work. Keep the winner, dump the rest. No blanket rules—just fast, individual data.