Ar numbers of observations per trial (6 to 8 stimulus fixations) and there were very few failures to observe one or more of the stimuli. The difference between participants with high versus low accuracy was in the sample-stimulus observing durations. The high-accuracy participants spent more than twice as long observing the four stimuli as they had observing two, with increases from means of 1.24 s to 3.65 s per trial for one participant and from 1.70 s to 4.19 s for the other. In contrast, the increases for the participants whose accuracy declined to overselective levels were much smaller, from 2.53 s to 2.66 s for one participant and from 1.32 to 2.02 s for the other. These participants then practiced with the four-sample task until accuracy scores rose to 100 (practice required 36?08 trials). Eye tracking data showed that the now-accurate performance was accompanied by relatively small changes in the number of fixations per trial, but large increases in sample-stimulus observing durations for both participants (from 2.66 s to 6.59 s per trial for one, and from 2.02 s to 4.12 s for the other). These results suggest that different PNB-0408 biological activity aspects of observing behavior may be independent. For subjects with high accuracy on the initial four-sample test, increases in both the number and duration of stimulus observations were approximately proportional to the increase in the number of sample stimuli. For those subjects with low accuracy on the initial four-sample test, the number of observations increased proportionally, but the total time spent observing did not. After the practice that re-established high behavioral performance, the total time spent observing was measurably greater as well. The apparent inflexibility in observing duration is consistent with basic laboratory research showing that observing behavior may be resistant to change when the stimuli that are observed are correlated with high rates of reinforcement (e.g., Setmelanotide site Shahan, Magee, Dobberstein, 2003). One implication for teaching AAC is that some students may need explicit training to pace scanning behavior in relation to the number of individual stimuli to be examined (e.g., AAC symbols), rather than some other global aspect of the displays. Training Broader Attention: Prompting Observing Behavior Five of the six participants with overselectivity in Dube et al. (2010) were given interventions designed to improve observing behavior during the eye-tracking sessions (one participant dropped out of the study because he was uncomfortable with the eye tracking research apparatus). These interventions occurred during the sample observation period, and they included various types of prompts; sometimes it was necessary to try several different types of prompts before finding one that was effective for each participant. Because these prompts changed some feature(s) of the experimental stimuli or introduced new stimuli, theyAugment Altern Commun. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Dube and WilkinsonPageare examples of a stimulus-based intervention approach. For one participant, the effective intervention was standard pointing prompts with verbal instructions while the experimenter pointed to sample stimuli (e.g., Look at this one, now the other one, now the first one again… etc.). The eye tracking research apparatus produced a video image showing the participant’s field of view with a superimposed cursor indicating the current point of gaze. The cursor position was continuou.Ar numbers of observations per trial (6 to 8 stimulus fixations) and there were very few failures to observe one or more of the stimuli. The difference between participants with high versus low accuracy was in the sample-stimulus observing durations. The high-accuracy participants spent more than twice as long observing the four stimuli as they had observing two, with increases from means of 1.24 s to 3.65 s per trial for one participant and from 1.70 s to 4.19 s for the other. In contrast, the increases for the participants whose accuracy declined to overselective levels were much smaller, from 2.53 s to 2.66 s for one participant and from 1.32 to 2.02 s for the other. These participants then practiced with the four-sample task until accuracy scores rose to 100 (practice required 36?08 trials). Eye tracking data showed that the now-accurate performance was accompanied by relatively small changes in the number of fixations per trial, but large increases in sample-stimulus observing durations for both participants (from 2.66 s to 6.59 s per trial for one, and from 2.02 s to 4.12 s for the other). These results suggest that different aspects of observing behavior may be independent. For subjects with high accuracy on the initial four-sample test, increases in both the number and duration of stimulus observations were approximately proportional to the increase in the number of sample stimuli. For those subjects with low accuracy on the initial four-sample test, the number of observations increased proportionally, but the total time spent observing did not. After the practice that re-established high behavioral performance, the total time spent observing was measurably greater as well. The apparent inflexibility in observing duration is consistent with basic laboratory research showing that observing behavior may be resistant to change when the stimuli that are observed are correlated with high rates of reinforcement (e.g., Shahan, Magee, Dobberstein, 2003). One implication for teaching AAC is that some students may need explicit training to pace scanning behavior in relation to the number of individual stimuli to be examined (e.g., AAC symbols), rather than some other global aspect of the displays. Training Broader Attention: Prompting Observing Behavior Five of the six participants with overselectivity in Dube et al. (2010) were given interventions designed to improve observing behavior during the eye-tracking sessions (one participant dropped out of the study because he was uncomfortable with the eye tracking research apparatus). These interventions occurred during the sample observation period, and they included various types of prompts; sometimes it was necessary to try several different types of prompts before finding one that was effective for each participant. Because these prompts changed some feature(s) of the experimental stimuli or introduced new stimuli, theyAugment Altern Commun. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Dube and WilkinsonPageare examples of a stimulus-based intervention approach. For one participant, the effective intervention was standard pointing prompts with verbal instructions while the experimenter pointed to sample stimuli (e.g., Look at this one, now the other one, now the first one again… etc.). The eye tracking research apparatus produced a video image showing the participant’s field of view with a superimposed cursor indicating the current point of gaze. The cursor position was continuou.
