The relative motivational properties of sensory and edible reinforcers in teaching autistic children.

The team compared edible and sensory reinforcers while teaching visual tasks to children with autism.

They used an alternating-treatments design. Each child got the same task with edible rewards on some trials and sensory rewards on others.

Sessions kept going until the child stopped responding, showing when each reinforcer type wore out.

A mix of sensory items kept the children working longer before satiation hit.

Accuracy stayed higher with the sensory mix than with edible items.

When only one item was given, edible and sensory worked the same, so variety was the key.

Boudreau et al. (2015) ran a similar test and saw edibles beat leisure items for keeping kids motivated. The two studies seem to clash, but the 2015 paper used only one leisure item at a time. The 1985 paper shows you need several sensory items to delay satiation, so the findings fit once variety is counted.

Milo et al. (2010) extended the idea to edibles. They showed that rotating different foods also keeps children with autism responding longer and resisting distraction. Together the papers say variety matters no matter the modality.

Dudley et al. (2019) used the same multi-item logic to make praise more powerful. Pairing praise with four reinforcers strengthened its effect more than pairing with one, echoing the benefit of multiple sensory items seen here.

You can stretch reinforcement value without extra cost by stocking a small sensory bin. Switch among bubbles, light toys, or vibration every few trials instead of handing out more cookies. The child stays accurate and you avoid time lost to satiation. Try it next session: pick three sensory items, rotate them, and watch the child keep working past the point where a single edible would quit.