Welcome

Welcome to a forum dedicated to applied behavior analysis. The purpose of this blog is to provide a forum for students, parents and professionals to access information and discuss timely concerns regarding the science of applied behavior analysis in a reader-friendly manner. Recently, blog traffic has increased. I'm thrilled with the interest and want to discuss topics, questions, and concerns that everyone wants to hear. While most of my topics stem from my day-to-day experiences with children and families, I invite suggestions for topics. Please email me if you have a particulary topic in mind. All inquiries, opinions, and concerns are welcome.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Eye Contact: ABA, DTT, and RDI

Eye contact for children with autism is always a concern. Well, not always, but usually. I do work with one little boy that appears to love looking people in the eyes and teaching this skill took all of four days when he was two-years old. For the rest of our kids, it can be very challenging.

Different orientations go about teaching eye contact in various ways. While I've voiced my opinion on RDI in the past, I will discuss it as additional strategies here. But in summary of previous posts, behavior is behavior. If you want to teach a new behavior, like eye contact, it WILL be taught using behavioral principles, whether you are comfortable calling it that or not. RDI provides us with strategies that modify the environment and provide creative ways to elicit eye contact, but eventually that eye contact is reinforced (ABA) shaped (ABA) given differentiated reinforcement depending on quality of eye contact (ABA) elicited by modifying the environment (ABA) elicited by using a discriminative stimulus (ABA). It is all ABA.

Where ABA has fallen short on the eye contact issue, in my humble opinion, is by not exploring more creative methods to elicit eye contact, and to make giving eye contact important. I'll go over some traditional methods that have been used to elicit eye contact, and then how some RDI ideas can be incorporated into an ABA program (since they are all based on behavior principles anyway.)

DTT - Discrete Trial Instruction/Training programs tend to teach eye contact in very contrived situations. A child will sit opposite a therapist, and given the directive "look at me" or the child's name will be called. Depending on the level of the child, a reinforcer will be held at the teacher's eye to help the child understand where they should look. Contingent upon eye contact, the child will immediately receive the reinforcer, possibly providing a token, and providing praise. It make look like this.
Teacher: "Look at me" (while holding an M&M at her eye)
Child: Looks at M&M and glances at teachers eye
Teacher: "Excellent looking" and provides M&M immediately.

This is an effective method and will teach a child to look at someone at the eyes when a demand is placed, when their name is called, when a reinforcer is present. However it doesn't always generalize. Some children that I work with look at me beautifully in the eyes, but when their grandmother says hello, they are looking anywhere but her eyes. Why? Maybe because she is not holding an M&M or a reinforcer in her hand, so the MO (motivating operation) to look in her eyes is not there. The child has not generalized that looking at people in the eyes is reinforcing.

ABA - Applied behavior analysis will of course incorporate the strategies used above, slowly fading out the item at the eye, just like DTT, until the child looks at the teacher's/parent's eyes without have a reinforcer within eye sight. Other methods are always used. In my programs, I prefer not to demand eye contact, but rather to wait for the child to initiation eye contact and reinforce the spontaneous eye contact. An example of this is the following

Teacher: Holding Elmo toy that two-year-old child with autism clearly wants to play with.
Student: Pulling at the toy, while staring at the toy
Teacher: Teacher looking at child's face, not letting go of the toy
Student: Still pulling at toy
Teacher: Still holding toy....continues to hold on until child glances up at which point the toy is immediately provided with praise and excitement.

This method reinforces spontaneous eye contact as opposed to eye contact that is requested. What ABA therapists do is contrive the environment to elicit eye contact, and reinforcer the eye contact, assuring that future eye contact will occur at higher rates due to the reinforcement.

RDI? I don't think RDI strategies are inconsistent with applied behavior analysis (ABA). What I have learned by attending these seminars is how to be more creative with my children. How to give my a children cool reasons to look at me, give me eye contact and enjoy themselves while doing it. It is these cool creative ideas (reinforcing events) that when used in the environment (modifying the environment) will provide a stimulus (SD) to elicit eye contact (response). (Do you see how it all falls so nicely into behavior principles.

I tried some of these strategies with a child that I work with. RDI talks about doing the unexpected, getting creative, and making kids care about giving eye contact. Now, I don't know if I am making them care about giving eye contact as it isn't something that I can observe, but what I CAN do is note the response, which was fantastic, and it didn't include reinforcing objects, rather reinforcing people (myself). That is one of the core tenets of RDI: to keep objects out of it and build relationships with people, which is quite different from ABA and DTT which rely on tangible reinforcers heavily.

I sat opposite a five-year old child with autism, removed toys and reinforcers out of sight in the environment, I positioned myself in front of him and waited. He didn't look at me, save the occasional glance. When he would glance, I smiled. See below

Child: Glanced
Teacher: Smiled
Child: Glanced again
Teacher: Blew air in his face
Child: Giggled
Teacher: Waited for eye contact again
Child: Gave it much more quickly
Teacher: Pinged child's nose
Child: Giggled, and while maintaining eye contact, blew air in teachers face
Teacher: Giggled, and made a raspberry on his cheek
Child: Giggled, and laughed, and said "blow"
Teacher: Blew air in his face, then by his ear, then on his toes
Child: Giggled, and pinged teacher's nose.

This went on, while maintaining eye contact. This is not an RDI program, this is an ABA therapist, using some of the creativity from RDI, and reinforcing and shaping the eye contact behavior of the child. At the end of this interlude, before he got tired of the game (satiated) I laid down on my back and left him alone. Normally, he would have walked away and found a toy to stim with. This time, that didn't happen. He watched me lay down, walked over to my face, looked at my eyes, giggled, and blew air at my cheek. I had made my eye contact and interaction reinforcing to him, so much, that he was seeking it out.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why teach eye contact at all? What purpose does it serve? I can understand teaching a child to look at an object, to watch a modelled behavior or to watch a person's face so as to figure out what they are feeling or looking at... but why is so much emphasis placed on teaching "eye contact"?


D.

Angela Mouzakitis, BCBA said...

I see that it isn't the most important skill (for example, communication is significantly more important), but personally, I think eye contact is incredibly important, though I understand the debate on it. My reasons for teaching eye contact.

- Social - Socially, when speakers engage in conversation, they look at you. When peers engage eachother and a child isn't giving them eye contact, peers will say "why isn't he looking at me?" and now a social opportunity has been lost as the peer walks away in confusion.

- communication - eye contact is a form of non-verbal communication, that is used frequently. Eye contact can communicate interest, attention, enjoyment.

It might appear arbitrary to look at someone's eyes, and may not be important to some, but especially talking to the parents I work with, they want to look in their children's eyes. The general public looks in others eyes when interacting. Those that do not make good eye contact, avoid a person's eyes have less opportunities for social experiences.

Additionally, children with autism are very visual. Looking at objects draws their strength in visual ability away from people and towards objects. We want to bring them back to engage with people, not away from them. So, I guess we could arbitrarly teach them to attend to any body part on a person, but the eyes is what our society uses at this point as the point of interest when talking.

As an aside, I chose eye contact as one example to display the three different strategies, but I cannot operationally define how exciting making eye contact with a child with autism is. I'll work on it, but there is something there, something intrinsically rewarding, reinforcing and motivating.

This is all I have on the fly right now. I'm sure others have a much stronger debate for or against teaching eye contact.

Andrew said...

The RDI people are keyed into reinforcing activities for the children and parents. The RDI folks, also, fail to deliver empirical evidence for their approaches.

How do I know this?

2 years ago, I asked and was told they won't enter into a debate. I wasn't asking for a debate. I was simply interested on the evidence for their well packaged programs.

Your willingness to open up to alternative approaches and see their utility and how behavioral principles are always incorporated makes for a very interesting blog.

As for eye contact. Looking into eyes is a pretty key indicator of where children's eyes are focussed, although D. is correct that eye contact may not be the most critical skill to some children.

Best,

Andrew

Angela Mouzakitis, BCBA said...

I also agree that eye contact should not be a focus. It shouldn't even be an isolated program. But I do feel that eye contact should be targeted throughout a child's day, which makes it a pervasive program so to speak.

The lack of evidence with RDI is troublesome, and I would like to see them pumping some out soon. However, when one is too busy putting out books, making money, changing his theories, to get research out there to see if this strategy is actually effective for these kids, well, it is his priorities.

My concern with RDI after attending some conferences is the deplorable attitude with which ABA is spoken about. This is concerning as most of the attendees are parents, and I would hate to see parents abandoning an evidence-based ABA program in favork of an non-evidence-based RDI program. That is a mistake, and it troubles me.

Regina F. said...

Thanks for the post (and for the blog).
I appreciate some of the ideas that are put forth by RDI, but honestly, we were already doing some of them as "ABA" before I heard of RDI...and resembled what you described.

While we used DTT as part of the instruction, the relationship building and such as eye contact had its origin in my reading on PRT, and my experience was the look -in-my-eyes-with-the-m&m was really look at the m&m, at least for my daughter.

I agree with you that it is more natural and probably under the more correct stimulus control to condition looking folks in the eyes when it is paired or reinforced with social consequences. I have also noted that averted eye contact from a person or item for typical kids is somewhat associated with fear or shyness, and wondered if there might be a respondent component at play?

We play alot of "eye" games--can she predict what am I going to do based on how open/squinted my eyes are? Can she tell what I am looking at? And reciprocate. Etc. (It's kind of fun figuring out ways to communicate and interact without saying a word).

Angela Mouzakitis, BCBA said...

Thanks for the comment Regina. I feel the same way about ABA and RDI. But I also understand the frustration by what some people call an "ABA program" and really they are working at the table for two hours straight with a two-year old child, which I consider not only NOT ABA, but completely inappropriate. I have sat in numerous conferences and lectures forcusing on relationship development in one context or another where I have heard ABA bashed repeatedly as not making the most out of the natural environment etc. And while this frustrates me to no end, I have also walked on on several of these "ABA" programs where they are worthy of the bashing. I'm not sure what the answer is besides tighter supervision of these programs.

I think the bottom line is that the principles of behavior are there and if you incorporate them into a cool and creative idea, you will see results. Much like your games with squinting and eye contact. As a behavior analyst I would say that you contrived the environment and established a motivating operation for eye contact...someone else wants to say its RDI....oh well. If it works for the child...

Thanks again.

DrSteve said...

Interesting thoughts re ABA/RDI. A few comments.
1. Gutstein, et al. of RDI fame have published an important-seeming article in 'Autism', 2007, vol. 11(5) - see http://thetoptwoinches.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/can-autism-be-cured-or-only-accommodated/
2. Eye contact is important - see
http://thetoptwoinches.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/the-eyes-have-it/
http://thetoptwoinches.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/emotional-face-reading-ii-lessons-from-autism/