Translations in Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing: Autoshaping of Learner Vocalizations

Abstract

Stimulus-stimulus pairing (SSP) is a procedure used by behavior analysis practitioners that capitalizes on respondent conditioning processes to elicit vocalizations. These procedures usually are implemented only after other, more customary methods (e.g., standard echoic training via modeling) have been exhausted. Unfortunately, SSP itself has mixed research support, probably because certain as-yet-unidentified procedural variations are more effective than others. Even when SSP produces (or increases) vocalizations, its effects can be short-lived. Although specific features of SSP differ across published accounts, fundamental characteristics include presentation of a vocal stimulus proximal with presentation of a preferred item. In the present article, we draw parallels between SSP procedures and autoshaping, review factors shown to affect autoshaping, and interpret autoshaping research for suggested SSP tests and applications. We then call for extended use and reporting of SSP in behavior-analytic treatments. Finally, three bridges created by this article are identified: basic-applied, respondent-operant, and behavior analysis with other sciences.

Keywords: Autoshaping; Classical conditioning; Respondent conditioning; Stimulus–stimulus pairing; Translational research; Verbal behavior.

Fig 1.

Diagram of events that occur during natural pairings of vocalizations and unconditioned stimuli in infants (top panel, a), contrived stimulus-stimulus pairing procedures for generating vocalizations in children (middle panel, b), and laboratory autoshaping preparations in nonhumans (bottom panel, c). Durations of events are estimated as generally representative of procedures and vary across specific occurrences and demonstrations

Fig 2.

Four ways stimuli can be presented temporally in SSP trials. Delay and short trace procedures (as shown in the middle panels, b and c) usually work best

Fig 3.

Schematic illustrating six types of contingency degradation reviewed by Escobar and Miller (2004). Exposure to vocalizations or preferred stimuli alone a before SSP training, b during SSP training, and c after SSP training can limit conditioning to practitioner vocalizations

Fig 4.

Visualization of a sign tracking and b goal tracking in SSP training trials. Conditioned vocalizations in the learner are more likely if the learner attends to, orients to, and/or approaches the vocalization rather than demonstrating a preoccupation with the upcoming preferred item