Meyer Thesis Habituation & Dishabituation to Auditory Stimuli

Home , Dishabituation, Orientation (mental)

University of Nevada, Reno

HABITUATION & DISHABITUATION TO AUDITORY STIMULI BY YOUNG

CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

in Psychology.

Staheli Meyer

Dr. Patrick. M. Ghezzi/Thesis Advisor

August, 2020

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by Staheli Meyer

entitled Habituation & Dishabituation to Auditory Stimuli By Young Children with Autism

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Patrick Ghezzi Ph.D. Advisor W. Larry Williams Ph.D. Committee Member Megan Swank Au.D. rte ereettie

ee rte

ABSTRACT

Children with autism (ASD) are characterized as overly responsive to certain stimuli in the physical environment. Additionally, the deficits used to diagnose ASD are deficits in associative learning processes. Such deficits in associative learning processes imply general deficits in non-associative learning processes. Specifically, observations of over-reactivity are of particular relevance to the non-associative process of habituation. The present investigation will evaluate habituation and dishabituation in children diagnosed with ASD.

The purpose of the present investigation is as follows: a) examine habituation and dishabituation in children with ASD, b) parametrically examine the effects of various dishabituation stimuli, and c) compare habituation and dishabituation with children with

ASD to typically developing children.

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to chair of my thesis committee, Patrick

Ghezzi, Ph.D., for his support and guidance on this research project. Dr. Ghezzi’s advisement and supervision have had a profound impact on my academic development, I am indebted to his support.

I would like to thank the remaining members of my committee, Larry Williams

Ph.D. and Megan Swank Au.D. for their feedback and commentary on the project. I would also like to specifically thank Megan Swank Au.D. for lending her department resources and audiological equipment.

In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to my peers and colleagues, Vanessa

Willmoth, Kim Henkle, and Taylor Seidler for their friendship and constant support. I would also like to thank the other members of Dr. Ghezzi’s lab for their thoughtful commentary and helpful feedback.

I would also like to thank my family for their care and encouragement throughout my life and this academic process.

Finally, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to Kate, my partner. Your unwavering encouragement and loving support have meant everything.

Table of Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………1

Experiment I

Purpose ……………………………………………………………………………6

Method ……………………………………………………….……………………6

Results & Discussion ………………………………………………………………9

Experiment II

Purpose ……………………………………………………………………….….13

Method ………………………………………………………………………...…13

Results: Hypothetical Outcome Model 1 ………………………………………....16

Discussion Model 1 ………………………………………………………………21

Results: Hypothetical Outcome Model 2 ………………………………….……....22

Discussion Model 2 ………………………………………………………………28

Results: Hypothetical Outcome Model 3 ………………………………….……....29

Discussion Model 3 ………………………………………………………………35

General Discussion ………………………………………………………………36

List of Tables

Table 1 ……………………………………………………………………………….….. 11

Table 2 ……………………………………………….……………………………...……13

Table 3 ………………………………………………………………………………..…..20

Table 4 ………………………………………………………………………...…………21

Table 5 ………………………………………………………………………………..…. 26

Table 6 ……………………………………………………………………………...……28

Table 7 ………………………………………………………………………………...….33

Table 8 ………………………………………………………………………………..…. 35

List of Figures

Figure 1 ………………………………………………………………………….……….10

Figure 2 …………………………………………………………………………………..11

Figure 3 ………………………………………………..…………………………………12

Figure 4a-c …………………………………………………………………………...….. 17

Figure 5 ………………………………………………………………………….……….19

Figure 6 …………………………………………………………………………………. 20

Figure 7a-c ………………………………………………………………………………..23

Figure 8 ……………………………………………………………...………………….. 25

Figure 9 …………………………………………………………………………………. 26

Figure 10a-c ……………………………………………………………………………... 30

Figure 11 ……………………………………………………………………...…………. 32

Figure 12 …………………………………………………………………………………34

List of Appendices

Appendix A …………………………………………………………………….……….38

Appendix B …………………………………………………………………….……….40

Introduction

The elicitation of an unconditioned response (UR) by an unconditioned stimulus

(US) is a fundamental learning process. Under conditions where an US is repeatedly presented, the UR will reliably decrease in frequency or magnitude and cease to occur altogether (Harris, 1943; Thompson & Spencer, 1966; Tighe & Leaton, 1976). This effect, termed “habituation,” occurs in virtually every living organism on Earth, from protista to humans (see Harris, 1943 for a comprehensive review; Mazur, 1998).

Harris (1943) gave this classic account of habituation in the spider:

If a tuning fork (is) held near the animal, it (will) drop off its web, wait a period, and then clamber back up its line. The full account of one specimen of Epeira labyrinthea, the most excitable species, is enlightening: Not until she had fallen out of the web 22 times, at the approach of the fork, could she restrain the impulse to drop. It was apparent, however, after the seventh or eighth time, that she was less startled by the sound than at first, since the distance that she fell and the period of time that elapsed before she returned to the web grew shorter and shorter in the later experiment. At first, she fell 15 or 18 inches and remained at the end of her line for several minutes, while toward the last she fell only an inch or two, and immediately ran back to her web. After the twenty-second trial, she only held up her legs as the fork approached. Finally, completely worn out and disgusted, she retreated to a neighboring branch, drew in her legs, and remained sullenly unresponsive to all further attempts’” (p. 404).

A second fundamental learning process, termed “dishabituation,” occurs when a previously habituated response returns following the presentation of a second stimulus. The effect is as ubiquitous as habituation, according to Thompson and Spencer (1966), and equally fundamental (Groves & Thompson, 1970; Humphrey, 1933; Kenzer, Ghezzi, &

Fuller, 2013; Lehner, 1941). If the pitch of the tuning fork was presented at a slightly higher pitch to Harris’ spider, and if the original pitch was then presented, the spider would fall from her web once again. This dishabituated response is itself subject to habituation, as shown in countless studies on “habituation of dishabituation” (Lehner, 1941).

A comprehensive review of the vast literature on habituation and dishabituation research and theory is beyond the scope of the current study (see reference, Groves &

Thompson, 1970; Harris, 1943; Lehner, 1941; Thompson & Spencer, 1966; Thompson,

2009). There are, however, certain areas that bear directly on the present investigation of habituation and dishabituation in young children. The following section is given to a discussion of research in those areas.

Theory and Research on Habituation

A distinction has long been made between non-associative learning and associative learning (Razrin, 1971). Non-associative learning processes are the substratum of the associative learning processes, respondent and operant conditioning. Of the non-associative processes, habituation (and dishabituation) is viewed as “the most basic form of learning”

(Muenssinger et al., 2013).

Groves and Thompson (1970) offer a theory of non-associative learning that incorporates the dual processes of habituation and sensitization. “Two independent hypothetical constructions, habituation and sensitization,” according to Groves and

Thompson, “interact to produce the net response to repeated stimulation” (p. 421). The theory is relevant to the physiological and the behavioral characteristics of habituation (and dishabituation).

On the physiological side, the focus is on stimulating a part of an organism such as a gland or membrane with a discrete, repeatedly presented stimulus such as a medical probe.

The UR’s and US’s in these investigations include neural responses and electrical impulses

(Muenssinger et al., 2013), respiration responses and visual stimuli (James & Barry, 1980), electrodermal responses and auditory stimuli (Stevens & Gruzelier, 1984), cardiovascular

3 responses and hot and cold stimuli (Zimny & Miller, 1966), galvanic skin responses and auditory stimuli (Coombs, 1938; Koepke & Pribham, 1966; O’Gorman, Mangan, & Gowen,

1970), abdominal responses and tactile stimulation (Lehner, 1941), and eye tightening and vibroacoustic stimulation (Bellieni, et al., 2005), to name a few.

On the behavioral side, the focus is on the actions of the whole organism such as an orienting response, or OR. The US is usually diffuse, as in a non-localized source of light or sound. The OR’s and US’s in these studies include head turns and auditory stimuli (Doney,

2006), eye fixation time and visual stimuli (Cohen, 1969; Saayman, Ames, & Moffett, 1964;

Welch, 1974; Wetherford & Cohen, 1973), suckle responses and sound stimuli (Keen, 1964), startle responses and noisy stimuli (Davis & Wagner, 1968), startle responses and vibrating stimuli (Madison, Madison, & Adubato, 1986), and startle responses to vibro-acoustic stimuli

(Groome, Gotlieb, Neely, & Waters, 1993).

Operant responses are subject to habituation and dishabituation, too. The frequency of an intermittently reinforced response serves as the measure of the effects of a superimposed US such as a loud tone, a bright light, or electric shock. Developed initially by

Estes and Skinner (1941) to study “conditioned emotional responses” and described by

Rescorla (1969) as a “US control” procedure, the preparation yields orderly data on the effects of repeatedly presenting stimuli on a given baseline rate of responding.

Also on the behavioral side is the research of McSweeney and her colleagues on the role of habituation of operant reinforcement (Aoyama, & McSweeney, 2001; Doney, 2006;

Ernst, & Epstein, 2002; Kenzer, Ghezzi, & Fuller, 2013; McSweeney, 2004; McSweeney, &

Roll, 1998; McSweeney, & Swindell, 1999). Reductions in the frequency of responding in an

4 experimental session, according to this research, are due in part to the repetitious delivery of a uniform stimulus such as a food pellet throughout the session.

The behavioral and physiological study of habituation and dishabituation follow a similar method. A US is presented and an UR is measured. Once the UR is habituated, a second “dishabituation” US is presented, and then the first US is re-presented for evidence of dishabituation of the UR to the first US. The difference between the frequency of the UR at the end of the habituation series is compared to the frequency of the UR to the US following the presentation of the dishabituation US.

Rankin and her colleagues (2009; see also Thompson & Spencer, 1966; McSweeney

& Murphy, 2000) have organized the key findings of habituation research into a taxonomy of

10 behavioral characteristics of habituation. Two characteristics essentially define habituation and dishabituation, as follows:

1. Repeated application of a stimulus results in a progressive decrease in some property of a response to an asymptotic level. (Habituation)

2. Presentation of a different stimulus results in an increase in the decremented response to the original stimulus. (Dishabituation)

According to Rankin (2009), “It is important to note that the proper test for dishabituation is an increase in response to the original stimulus and not an increase in response to the dishabituating stimulus” (p. 137). This is an important point, one that we shall revisit in the methods section of the present research.

We turn next to establishing a connection between habituation, dishabituation and early childhood ASD.

The Connection to Autism

Children with ASD are characterized as being overly responsive to seemingly irrelevant stimulation (Baranek & Berkson, 1994; Kientz & Dunn, 1997; Rodgers, Hepburn,

& Wehner, 2003). Observations of over-responsivity are of particular relevance to processes and outcomes of habituation and dishabituation, as such reports can be regarded as a failure to habituate or de-sensitize to prolonged stimulation.

Furthermore, a distinction has long been made between reactive or non-associative learning and interactive or associative learning (Razrin, 1971). The deficits used to diagnosis

ASD are deficits in associative learning processes. Such deficits in associative learning processes strongly imply general deficits in non-associative learning processes. Observations of over-reactivity, specifically, are of particular relevance to the non-associative process of habituation (Doney, 2006). Thus, investigations of non-associative learning process deficits related to the development of autistic repertoires could reveal non-associative process deficit in children with ASD.

The behavior interference theory of ASD by Bijou and Ghezzi (1999) postulates that a baseline tendency to escape and avoid tactile and auditory stimulation, which is common in

ASD, interferes with the development of conditioned social stimuli, in turn contributing to

(a) poor parental attachment, b) delays in social, emotional, and verbal behavior development, and c) frequent stereotypical behavior. This tendency, according to the theory, may be rooted in a dysfunction at the level of habitation and dishabituation.

The working assumption in the current research is that differentiation in habituation and dishabituation is present between children with ASD and typically developing peers.

This difference appears early at both a non-associative and associative level, and distinguishes a child with ASD from a typically developing peer. The more specific

6 assumption is that children with ASD will show an erratic pattern of habituation to auditory stimuli relative to their typically developing siblings. Research conducted by Doney (2006) found large differences in orienting to a tone by young children with ASD compared to their typically developing siblings. In an attempt to address issues with the presumed sensory dysfunction in ASD, Szabo (2013), found that age, gender, and stimuli are factors that impact habituation patterns with children with autism. The present studies are a partial replication and an extension of it to dishabituation.

Experiment I

Purpose

The purpose of the present investigation is to examine habituation and dishabituation of the OR to auditory stimuli (tones) in a pair of young siblings with and without a diagnosis of ASD. The effects of repeated tone presentation and the effect of dishabituation stimuli was assessed, and evidence for dishabituation effect was obtained.

Method

Participants

Two pre-schooled aged children participated in the first experiment. Participant A01 was 5 years 1-month old male and was diagnosed with ASD. Participant T01 was 2 years 6- months old male and was a typically developing sibling of participant A01. The GARS-3 indicated that participant A01 probability of autism is very likely the probability of autism for participant T01 is unlikely. The child with ASD was recruited from the community. Their participation in the experiment was contingent on the participation of a typically developing brother or sister in the same experiment. Each child according to parent report of pediatric evaluations, hears within normal limits.

Setting

All experimental conditions were conducted in a 6’ 6” h x 8’ 7” w x 8’ 4” d soundproof test chamber located in the Neil J. Redfield Building on the campus of

University of Nevada, Reno and manufactured by ETS Lindgren Acoustic Systems. The contents of the room included a child-sized booster chair positioned 40” from front, and equidistant from sides of the chamber and an iPad positioned 24” in front of the chair. The test chamber was dimmed 3 lux during all experimental sessions.

Apparatus

Discrete tones were presented through the auditory chamber on the right side of the participant. Two tones were presented over the course of the experiment, as follows:

40dB/1000Hz and 80dB/4000Hz. An iPad was used to record all experimental sessions. A

MacBook was used for collecting, coding, and analyzing data.

Materials

The experimenter conducted a brief intake interview once a parent arrived with a sibling dyad. This included collecting demographic information (see Appendix B) and conducting a parent interview Gilliam Autism Rating Scale-Third Edition (GARS-3). The experimenter was equipped with an OR Data Sheet, programed on a Microsoft® Excel workbook, which was used to record occurrences and non-occurrences of an OR to a tone

(see Appendix A).

Data Collection and Dependent Measure

A primary rater independently marked the occurrence and non-occurrence of an OR to a tone as it appeared on the recorded tape. An occurrence was scored when a discrete

8 movement of a child’s head, shoulders or torso occurred in the direction of the speaker, from the onset of the tone to within one second after the tone ends.

The individual rate of ORs in relation to the habituation and dishabituation stimuli constituted the main dependent measure. Cumulative rates and patterns of ORs for each participant are displayed on various charts and graphs in relation to the stimuli presented over the course of the experiment.

Interobserver Agreement (IOA)

A secondary rater recorded the occurrences and non-occurrences of OR for 50% of sessions. Agreement was assessed using trial-by-trial IOA, calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements and multiplying 100%.

The agreement was 95%.

Experimental Design and Data Analysis

An ABC single subject design was used to demonstrate experimental control of the

OR by the habituation and dishabituation stimuli.

Experimental Procedures

Condition A: Habituation. A participant, seated in a chair facing the front wall of the test chamber, was exposed repeatedly to a 40dB/1000Hz tone delivered through a chamber speaker located to the right of the participant on the right side of the front wall. A one- second 40dB/1000Hz tone occurred once every five seconds. Sixty tones were presented during this 6 min condition. Condition B began 5 sec. following the last stimulus presentation of condition A.

Condition B: Dishabituation Stimuli Presentation. A single tone, one second in duration, was presented from the chamber speaker located to the right of the participant.

The sibling pair was exposed to the 80dB/4000Hz tone. Condition C began 5 sec. following the single stimulus presentation of condition B.

Condition C: Dishabituation. A single, 40dB/1000Hz tone, one second in duration, was presented. This condition served as a test for dishabituation.

Experiment I ended at the conclusion of the C condition. The experimenter thanked the participant and parents, and any questions the parents or children had about the experiment were answered at this time.

Results and Discussion

The results are shown in Figure 1 as the cumulative number of ORs over the 62 stimulus presentations. Participant A01, the sibling with ASD shown in blue, gave more ORs and showed a more erratic pattern of ORs then did the typical sibling throughout the condition. The effect of the 80dB/1000Hz tone in Condition B was the same for Participant

A01 and T01. In Condition C, a dishabituation effect occurred with Participant T01 but not with Participant A01, the sibling with ASD.

Figure 1. Cumulative record of ORs during habituation and dishabituation conditions for Participants A01 and T01.

Figure 2 depicts the rate of decline in ORs over each successive one-minute period in Condition A for both participants. Habituation is evident for both siblings over repeated presentations of the 40dB/1000Hz tone. There was a consistently higher rate of ORs by A01 compared to T01 through the first three minutes of the session, which corresponds to the first 30 presentations of the tone.

Figure 2. Rate of ORs during habituation condition for Participants A01 and T01.

Table 1 shows whether a participant made an OR to the 80dB/4000Hz tone in

Condition B, and whether the same participant made an OR to the 40 dB/1000Hz tone in

Condition C. Participant A01, the child with ASD, made an OR to the dishabituation stimulus, as did the child’s sibling. The difference is the dishabituation condition, where

Participant A01 gave no OR to the tone while the typical sibling oriented to it.

Table 1. ORs to the dishabituation stimulus (Condition B) and to the representation of the original habituation stimulus (Condition C).

OR in Condition C Participants OR in Condition B (Dishabituation) A01 Yes No T01 Yes Yes

Figure 3. compares the number of ORs made by each sibling. Participant A01 oriented more times to auditory tones than did participant T01.

Figure 3. Total number of ORs for the child with ASD and the typically developing sibling.

Table 2 lists the three key characteristics of habituation and dishabituation and compares the data obtained from two pilot participants accordingly. Repeated presentations of the 40dB/1000 Hz tone resulted in a corresponding decrease in the OR the stimulus

(habituation) for both participants. The presentation of the 80dB/4000Hz tone reinstated the OR that dissipated at 40dB/1000Hz for participant T01 but not for participant A01. A change in the tone, from a 40dB/1000Hz to 80dB/4000 Hz tone, disrupted habitation for both participants.

Table 2. Characteristics of Habituation and Dishabituation

Characteristics of Habituation A01 T01 Repeated presentations of a stimulus results in a corresponding decrease Yes Yes in responding to the stimulus (habituation). The presentation of a different stimulus will result in the No Yes reappearance of a previously habituated response (dishabituation) Changes in the repeatedly presented Yes Yes stimulus disrupt habitation. Experiment II1

Purpose

The purpose of the present investigation is to explant upon the preliminary results found in Experiment I by examining habituation and dishabituation of the OR to auditory stimuli (tones) in pairs of young siblings with and without a diagnosis of ASD. The effects of two different tones as dishabituation stimuli was assessed parametrically, and evidence for dishabituation effect was evaluated.

Method

Participants

Six pre-schooled aged children participated, three diagnosed with ASD and three typically developing siblings of the children with ASD. The children with ASD were recruited from the community. Their participation in the experiment was contingent on the participation of a typically developing brother or sister in the same experiment. Each child in a dyad, according to parent report of pediatric evaluations, hears within normal limits.

1 Note: Due to the global pandemic the follow section is composed of hypothetical method, results, and discussion sections, which was developed based on anticipated findings from a preliminary investigation.

Setting

All experimental conditions were conducted in a 6’ 6” h x 8’ 7” w x 8’ 4” d soundproof test chamber manufactured by ETS Lindgren Acoustic Systems located in the

Neil J. Redfield Building on the campus of University of Nevada, Reno. The contents of the room included a child-sized booster chair positioned 40” from front, and equidistant from sides of the chamber and an iPad positioned 24” in front of the chair. The test chamber was dimmed 3 lux during all experimental sessions.

Apparatus

Discrete tones were presented through the auditory chamber. The side of the tone’s administration was counterbalanced across dyads, tones were administered on the right side of the participant for two dyads and tones were administered on the left side of the participant for one dyad. Three tones were presented over the course of the experiment, as follows: 40dB/500Hz, 40dB/1000Hz, and 40dB/2000Hz. An iPad was used to record all experimental sessions. A MacBook was used for collecting, coding, and analyzing data.

Materials

(see Appendix A).

Data Collection and Dependent Measure

A primary rater independently marked the occurrence and non-occurrence of an OR to a tone. An occurrence was scored when a 10-degree discrete movement of a child’s head, shoulders or torso occurred in the direction of the speaker, from the onset of the tone to within one second after the tone ends.

The individual rate of ORs in relation to the habituation and dishabituation stimuli constituted the main dependent measure. Cumulative rates and patterns of ORs for each participant are be displayed on various charts and graphs in relation to the stimuli presented over the course of the experiment.

Experimental Design and Data Analysis

An ABCAB’C multi-element single subject design was used to demonstrate experimental control of the OR by the habituation and dishabituation stimuli. Featured in

Condition B and B’ was a parametric design element to evaluate and compare the effects of two values of dishabituation stimuli on the OR.

Experimental Procedures

40dB/1000Hz tones were delivered in this manner until the participant failed to orient to the tone eight consecutive times. Condition B began 5 sec. following the eighth consecutively not oriented to stimulus presentation of condition A.

Condition B: Dishabituation Stimuli Presentation. A single tone, one second in duration, was presented from the chamber speaker. Each sibling pair was exposed to the

40dB/500Hz tone, or the 40dB/2000Hz tone. Order of exposure to dishabituation tones

16 were counter balanced across sibling pairs. Two sibling pairs contacted the 40dB/2000Hz tone first, and one sibling pair contacted the 40dB/500Hz tone first. Condition C began 5 sec. following the single stimulus presentation of condition B.

Condition C: Dishabituation. The 40dB/1000Hz tone delivered through a chamber speaker was delivered again, repeatedly. The one-second 40dB/1000Hz tone occurred once every five seconds. Tones were delivered in this manner until the participant failed to orient to the tone eight consecutive times. This condition served as a test for dishabituation.

Exposure to the subsequent three experimental conditions (AB’C) occurred no less than one-week after completion of the first three experimental conditions (ABC). Condition

A and C were identical. In condition B’ participants were exposed to a single 40dB/500Hz or 40dB/2000Hz tone, one second in duration in which they were not exposed in condition

The experiment ended at the conclusion of the second C condition. The experimenter thanked the participant and parents, and any questions the parents or children had about the experiment were answered at this time.

Results: Hypothetical Outcome Model 1

The following results are depicted as Hypothetical Outcome Model 1, which portrays maximal possible differences in habituation between children with autism and typically developing siblings, with minimal parametric effects of the dishabituation stimuli.

The results are shown in Figure 4a-c as the cumulative number of ORs over the six experimental conditions. Participant A01, A02, and A03 the siblings with ASD shown in blue, gave more ORs and showed more erratic patterns of ORs then did the typical siblings shown in green throughout the totality of the experiment. The effect of the 40dB/500Hz

17 and 40dB/2000Hz tone in Conditions B and B’ was the same for participants with autism and typically developing children, which was to reestablish the orienting response. In

Condition C, a dishabituation effect occurred with all participants however the number of stimulus presentation to habituate to the 40dB/1000Hz tone was higher for all children with autism.

Figure 4a. Cumulative record of ORs during ABCAB’C conditions for Dyad 1; Participants A01 and T01.

Figure 4b. Cumulative record of ORs during ABCAB’C conditions for Dyad 2; Participants A02 and T02.

Figure 4c. Cumulative record of ORs during ABCAB’C conditions for Dyad 3; Participants A03 and T03.

Figure 5 shows the number of trials to habituation for A and C conditions. The trials to habituation decreased for all participants as repeated exposure to the 40dB/1000Hz tone continued. However, the trials to habituate were higher for the children diagnosed with ASD then the number of trials to habituation for the typically developing siblings.

Figure 5. Trials to habituation for the A and C conditions, in which the 40dB/1000Hz tone was repeatedly presented.

Table 3 shows whether participants made an OR to the 40dB/500Hz and

40dB/2000Hz tones in Conditions B and B’ and whether the same participant made an OR to the representation of the 40 dB/1000Hz tone in the C conditions. All participants, both the children with ASD and their typically developing siblings, made an OR to the dishabituation stimuli and to the first stimulus presentations in the dishabituation conditions.

Table 3. ORs to the dishabituation stimulus (Condition B and B’) and to the representation of the original habituation stimulus (Condition C).

OR to 40dB OR to 40dB 500Hz tone in 2000Hz tone OR in Condition C Dyad Participants Condition in Condition (Dishabituation) B/B’ B/B’ A01 Yes Yes Yes Dyad 1 T01 Yes Yes Yes A02 Yes Yes Yes Dyad 2 T02 Yes Yes Yes A03 Yes Yes Yes Dyad 3 T03 Yes Yes Yes

Figure 6. The number of ORs made by children diagnosed with ASD to the number of ORs made by the typically developing siblings. Participants with ASD oriented more times to auditory tones than did the typically developing participants.

Figure 6. Total number of ORs for the children with ASD and the typically developing siblings.

Table 4 lists the three key characteristics of habituation and dishabituation and compares the data obtained. Repeated presentations of the 40dB/1000 Hz tone resulted in a

21 corresponding decrease in the OR to the stimulus (habituation) for all participants. The children with ASD habituated more slowly and more erratically than the typically developing siblings, however. The presentation of the 40dB/500Hz and 40dB/2000Hz tones reinstated the OR that dissipated at 40dB/1000Hz for all participants. A change in the tone, from a

40dB/1000Hz to either the 40dB/500 Hz tone or the 40dB/2000Hz tone disrupted habitation for all participants.

Table 4. Characteristics of Habituation and Dishabituation

Typically Developing Characteristics of Habituation Children with ASD Children Repeated presentations of a stimulus results in a corresponding Yes Yes decrease in responding to the stimulus (habituation). The presentation of a different stimulus will result in the reappearance of a previously Yes Yes habituated response (dishabituation) Changes in the repeatedly presented Yes Yes stimulus disrupt habitation.

Discussion

The children with ASD show increased sensitization to the initial presentations of the 40 dB/1000Hz tone in the A conditions. The children with ASD took longer to habituate to the repeated presentations of the 40 dB/1000Hz tone in the A and C conditions. This finding suggests they were overly responsive to auditory stimuli when compared to typically developing siblings. There were no parametric differences found between the children with ASD and their typically developing siblings. That is, all children oriented to the dishabituation stimuli (both the 40dB/500Hz and the 40dB/2000Hz tones), and both tones served to dishabituation responding to the originally habituation stimulus.

The results suggest that the non-associative learning process of habitation may be related to the development of ASD. The observations used to diagnose ASD can be regarded as a failure to habituate. The present investigation found differences in habituation between children with ASD and typically developing siblings. The children with ASD habituated more slowly to repeatedly presented tones. These findings are consistent with the presumptions of the behavioral interference theory. That is, dysfunctional process of habitation may interfere with child development.

Results: Hypothetical Outcome Model 2

The following results are depicted as Hypothetical Outcome Model 2, which interprets moderate differences in habituation between children with autism and typically developing siblings with significant parametric effects of the dishabituation stimuli.

The results are shown in Figure 7a-c as the cumulative number of ORs over the six experimental conditions. The participants with ASD gave more ORs and showed more erratic patterns of ORs then did the typical siblings throughout the totality of the experiment. Differential effects of the 40dB/500Hz and 40dB/2000Hz tone in Conditions B and B’ were observed with more significant disruptions in habituation produced by the

40dB/2000Hz tone and less of an effect found for the 40dB/500Hz tone. The

40dB/2000Hz tone disrupted habitation for all participants, while the 40dB/500Hz tone disrupted habitation for all children with ASD and one typically developing sibling.

Differential effects were also observed in Condition C, with the 40dB/2000Hz tone producing dishabituation to the repeated presentation of the 40dB/1000Hz tone for all participants, while the 40dB/500Hz tone failed to produce the dishabituation effect for the

23 typically developing children but did produce the dishabituation effect for all children with

ASD.

Figure 7a. Cumulative record of ORs during ABCAB’C conditions for Dyad 1; Participants A01 and T01.

Figure 7b. Cumulative record of ORs during ABCAB’C conditions for Dyad 2; Participants A02 and T02.

Figure 7c. Cumulative record of ORs during ABCAB’C conditions for Dyad 3; Participants A03 and T03.

Figure 8 shows the number of trials to habituation for A and C conditions. The trials to habituation decreased for all participants as repeated exposure to the 40dB/1000Hz tone continued. However, the trials to habituation were higher for the children diagnosed with

ASD then the number of trials to habituation for the typically developing siblings.

Figure 8. Trials to habituation for the A and C conditions, in which the 40dB/1000Hz tone was repeatedly presented.

Table 5 shows whether participants made an OR to the 40dB/500Hz and

40dB/2000Hz tones in Conditions B and B’ and whether the same participant made an OR to the representation of the 40 dB/1000Hz tone in the C conditions. All participants oriented to the 40dB/2000Hz tones in Conditions B or B’, but not all oriented to the

40dB/500Hz tones. All of the children with ASD orient to the 40dB/500Hz tone as did one typically developing child in dyad 1. All participants oriented to the representation of the

40dB/1000Hz tone (Condition C) after the single presentation of the 40dB/2000Hz tone.

All of the children with ASD and none of the typically developing siblings oriented to the

representation of the 40dB/1000Hz tone (Condition C) after the single presentation of the

40dB/500Hz tone.

Table 5. ORs to the dishabituation stimulus (Condition B and B’) and to the representation of the original habituation stimulus (Condition C).

OR in Condition OR to 40dB OR in Condition OR to 40dB C 2000Hz tone C 500Hz tone Dyad Participants (Dishabituation) in Condition (Dishabituation) in Condition After 40dB B/B’ After 40dB B/B’ 500Hz tone 2000Hz tone A01 Yes Yes Yes Yes Dyad 1 T01 Yes No Yes Yes A02 Yes Yes Yes Yes Dyad 2 T02 No No Yes Yes A03 Yes Yes Yes Yes Dyad 3 T03 No No Yes Yes

Figure 9 compares the number of ORs made by children diagnosed with ASD to the

number of ORs made by the typically developing siblings. Participants with ASD oriented

more times to auditory tones than did the typically developing participants.

Figure 9. Total number of ORs for the children with ASD and the typically developing siblings.

Table 6 lists the three key characteristics of habituation and dishabituation and compares the data obtained. Repeated presentations of the 40dB/1000 Hz tone resulted in a corresponding decrease in the OR the stimulus (habituation) for all participants. The children with ASD habituated more slowly and more erratically than the typically developing siblings, however. The presentation of the 40dB/2000Hz tones reinstated the OR that dissipated at 40dB/1000Hz for all participants. However, the presentation of the

40dB/500Hz tone did not reinstate the OR that dissipated at 40dB/1000Hz for the typically developing children, but it did for the children with ASD. A change in the tone, from a

40dB/1000Hz to the 40dB/2000Hz tone disrupted habitation for all participants. Yet, a change in the tone, from a 40dB/1000Hz to the 40dB/500Hz tone failed to disrupt habitation for two of the typically developing children but did disrupt habitation for all children with ASD and for one typically developing sibling.

Table 6. Characteristics of Habituation and Dishabituation

Characteristics of Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3 Habituation A01 T01 A02 T02 A03 T03 Repeated presentations of a stimulus results in a Stimulus value corresponding decrease Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 40dB/1000Hz in responding to the stimulus (habituation). The presentation of a Different different stimulus will stimulus value Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes result in the reappearance 40dB/2000Hz of a previously Different habituated response stimulus value Yes No Yes No Yes No (dishabituation) 40dB/500Hz Different Changes in the stimulus value Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes repeatedly presented 40dB/2000Hz stimulus disrupt Different habitation. stimulus value Yes Yes Yes No Yes No 40dB/500Hz

Discussion

The children with ASD show increased sensitization to the initial presentations of the 40 dB/1000Hz tone in the A conditions. The children with ASD took longer to habituation to the repeated presentations of the 40 dB/1000Hz tone in the A and C conditions. This finding suggests they were overly responsive to auditory stimuli when compared to typically developing siblings. There were parametric differences of the dishabituation stimuli found between the children with ASD and their typically developing siblings. That is, the 40dB/2000Hz tone produced more significant disruptions in habituation, than the 40dB/500Hz. Also, the 40dB/2000Hz tone produced dishabituation to the repeated presentation of the 40dB/1000Hz tone, while the 40dB/500Hz tone failed to

29 produce the dishabituation for the typically developing children but did produce a dishabituation effect for the children with ASD.

The results suggest that the non-associative learning process of habitation and dishabituation may be related to the development of ASD. The observations used to diagnose ASD may be regarded as a failure to habituate. The present investigation found differences in habituation and dishabituation between children with ASD and typically developing siblings. The children with ASD habituated more slowly to repeatedly presented tones. Further, the children with ASD took longer to habituate again to stimulus presentation after a dishabituation stimulus was introduced. Further both increases and decreases in pitch produced dishabituation effects in children with ASD while only an increase in pitch produced dishabituation effects in children identified as typically developing. These findings are consistent with the assumptions of Bijou and Ghezzi’s

(1999) behavior interference theory. That is, dysfunctional non-associative processes of habitation may interfere with associative learning processes in early child development.

Results: Hypothetical Outcome Model 3

The following results are depicted as Hypothetical Outcome Model 3, which shows minimal differences between children with autism and typically developing siblings with minimal parametric effects of the dishabituation stimuli.

The results are shown in Figure 10a-c as the cumulative number of ORs over the six experimental conditions. There was no difference in habituation to the 40dB/1000Hz tone in Condition A between the children with ASD and the typically developing children. The effect of the 40dB/500Hz and 40dB/2000Hz tone in Conditions B and B’ was the varied for participants with ASD and typically developing children. Two children with ASD and two

30 typically developing child showed no differential effects of the parametric stimuli. In

Condition C, a dishabituation effect was observed for two children with ASD and one typically developing child.

Figure 10a. Cumulative record of ORs during ABCAB’C conditions for Dyad 1; Participants A01 and T01.

Figure 10b. Cumulative record of ORs during ABCAB’C conditions for Dyad 2; Participants A02 and T02.

Figure 10c. Cumulative record of ORs during ABCAB’C conditions for Dyad 3; Participants A03 and T03.

Figure 11 shows the number of trials to habituation for A and C conditions. The trials to habituation decreased for only two participants and trials were variable for four participants as repeated exposure to the 40dB/1000Hz tone continued. Further, there were no differences in the number of trials to habituation for the children with ASD compared to the typically developing children.

Figure 11. Trials to habituation for the A and C conditions, in which the 40dB/1000Hz tone was repeatedly presented.

Table 7 shows whether participants made an OR to the 40dB/500Hz and

40dB/2000Hz tones in Conditions B and B’ and whether the same participant made an OR to the representation of the 40 dB/1000Hz tone in the C conditions. The effect of the

40dB/500Hz and 40dB/2000Hz tone in Conditions B and B’ was the varied. Two children with ASD and two typically developing child showed no differential effects of the parametric stimuli. One child with ASD and one typically developing child showed differential effects of the 40dB/500Hz and 40dB/2000Hz tone in Conditions B and B’. The 40dB/2000Hz tone

disrupted habituation and produced evidence of dishabituation, but the 40dB/500Hz did

not.

Table 7. ORs to the dishabituation stimulus (Condition B and B’) and to the representation of the original habituation stimulus (Condition C).

OR in Condition OR to 40dB OR in Condition OR to 40dB C 2000Hz tone C 500Hz tone Dyad Participants (Dishabituation) in Condition (Dishabituation) in Condition After 40dB B/B’ After 40dB B/B’ 500Hz tone 2000Hz tone A01 Yes Yes Yes Yes Dyad 1 T01 No No Yes Yes A02 No No No No Dyad 2 T02 Yes Yes Yes Yes A03 No No Yes Yes Dyad 3 T03 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Figure 12 compares the number of ORs made by children diagnosed with ASD to

the number of ORs made by the typically developing siblings. There was no difference

between the number of times the children with ASD oriented to the auditory tones when

compared to the typically developing participants.

Figure 12. Total number of ORs for the children with ASD and the typically developing siblings.

Table 8 lists the three key characteristics of habituation and dishabituation and compares the data obtained. Repeated presentations of the 40dB/1000 Hz tone resulted in a corresponding decrease in the OR the stimulus (habituation) for all participants. The presentation of the 40dB/2000Hz tones reinstated the OR that dissipated at 40dB/1000Hz for five of the six participants. The presentation of the 40dB/500Hz tone reinstate the OR that dissipated at 40dB/1000Hz for three of the six participants. A change in the tone, from a 40dB/1000Hz to the 40dB/2000Hz tone disrupted habitation for five of six participants.

A change in the tone, from a 40dB/1000Hz to the 40dB/500Hz tone disrupted habitation for three of the six participants. It was found that dishabituation was correlated with the disruption of habituation produced by the dishabituation stimulus, dishabituation was only observed when the dishabituation stimulus disrupted the habitation of the orienting response in Conditions B and B’.

Table 8. Characteristics of Habituation and Dishabituation

Characteristics of Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3 Habituation A01 T01 A02 T02 A03 T03 Repeated presentations of a stimulus results in a Stimulus value corresponding decrease Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 40dB/1000Hz in responding to the stimulus (habituation). The presentation of a Different different stimulus will stimulus value Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes result in the reappearance 40dB/2000Hz of a previously Different habituated response stimulus value Yes No No Yes No Yes (dishabituation) 40dB/500Hz Different Changes in the stimulus value Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes repeatedly presented 40dB/2000Hz stimulus disrupt Different habitation. stimulus value Yes No No Yes No Yes 40dB/500Hz

Discussion

The children with ASD and the typically developing children showed no difference in habitation or sensitization. These findings suggest that the children with ASD were not overly responsive to auditory stimuli when compared to typically developing siblings. There were mixed parametric differences found between the children with ASD and their typically developing siblings. Four of the six participants showed no differential effects of the parametric stimuli. That is, both the 40dB/500Hz and 40dB/2000Hz tones served to dishabituate responding to the originally presented 40dB/1000Hz tone. For two participants, one with ASD and one typically developing, the 40dB/2000Hz tone served to dishabituate responding to the originally presented 40dB/1000Hz tone.

The results suggest that the non-associative learning process of habitation is not related to the development of ASD. The present investigation found no reliable differences

36 in habituation and dishabituation between children with ASD and typically developing siblings. The children with ASD habituated at the same rate to repeatedly presented tones as did their typically developing siblings. Also, the children with ASD showed no initial increased sensitization to the tones. These findings are inconsistent with the presumptions of the behavioral interference theory. Which suggests that dysfunctional process of habitation may interfere with child development. There were no discovered differences in habitation and dishabituation between children with ASD and typically developing children suggesting that the presumed non-associative learning process deficit was not supported.

General Discussion

The behavior interference theory of ASD by Bijou and Ghezzi (1999) proposes that children with ASD have a tendency to escape and avoid tactile and auditory stimulation. This avoidance interferes with establishment of conditioned social stimuli which leads to issues with parental attachment, social, emotional, verbal and stereotypical behavior. As the theory suggests, this tendency may be influenced by dysfunctional habituation processes.

The above experiments sought to elucidate differences in habituation and dishabituation between children with ASD and typically developing children. Identified differences would serve to support the behavior interference theory of ASD. These differences may appear early and at both the non-associative and associative levels. Such differences in habituation processes would distinguish a child with ASD from a typically developing peer and would lead to differences in development. A child with ASD would be more likely to avoid and escape certain stimuli as they fail to habituate to them; this would inhibit typical development. That is, autistic behavior may be linked to failures to habituate

37 to auditory stimuli, which create compounding issues on psychological and social development.

APPENDIX A Orienting Response (OR) Data Sheet Participant: ______Recorder: ______Experiment Date: ______Date coded: ______

Condition OR: Circle Condition OR: Circle

Yes or No Yes or No

A Yes No B Yes No Yes No C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Condition OR: Circle Condition OR: Circle

Yes or No Yes or No

A Yes No B’ Yes No Yes No C Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

APPENDIX B Demographic Questionnaire

Child’s Name: ______DOB: ______Age: ___ years ___ months

Sex (circle 1): Male / Female

Please mark under the heading that best fits your child:

Yes No

1. Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. ______

a. If diagnosed with autism, indicate age of ______

diagnosis.

2. Hearing problems. ______

a. If hearing problems are identified, explain. ______

REFERENCES

Aoyama, K., & McSweeney, F. K. (2001). Habituation contributes to within-session changes

in free wheel running. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76(3), 289-302.

doi:10.1901/jeab.2001.76-289

Baranek, G. T., & Berkson, G. (1994). Tactile defensiveness in children with developmental

disabilities: Responsiveness and habituation. Journal of Autism and Developmental

Disorders, 24(4), 457-471. doi:10.1007/BF02172128

Bellieni, C. V., Severi, F., Bocchi, C., Caparelli, N., Bagnoli, F., Buonocore, G., & Petraglia,

F. (2005). Blink-startle reflex habituation in 30-34-week low-risk fetuses. Journal of

Perinatal Medicine, 33(1), 33.

Bijou, S. W., & Ghezzi, P. M. (1999). The behavior interference theory of autistic behavior

in young children. In Ghezzi, P. M., Williams, W. L., Carr, J. E. (Ed.), Autism: behavior

analytic perspectives (pp. 33-43). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Cohen, L. B. (1969). Observing responses, visual preferences, and habituation to visual

stimuli in infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 7(3), 419-433.

doi:10.1016/0022-0965(69)90004-6

Coombs, C. H. (1938). Adaptation of the galvanic response to auditory stimuli. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 22(3), 244-268.

Davis, M., & Wagner, A. R. (1968). Startle responsiveness after habituation to different

intensities of tone. Psychonomic Science, 12(7), 337-338. doi:10.3758/BF03331339

Doney, J. K. (2006). Habituation to Auditory Stimuli by Young Children with Autism (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV.

Ernst, M. M., & Epstein, L. H. (2002). Habituation of responding for food in humans.

Appetite. 38, 224-234.

Estes, W. K., & Skinner, B. F. (1941). Some quantitative properties of anxiety. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 29(5), 390-400.

Gilliam, J. E. (2014). Gilliam Autism Rating Scale-Third Edition (GARS-3). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Groome, L. J., Gotlieb, S. J., Neely, C. L., & Waters, M. D. (1993). Developmental trends in

fetal habituation to vibroacoustic stimulation. American Journal of Perinatology, 10(1),

46.

Groves, P. M., & Thompson, R. F. (1970). Habituation: A Dual-Process Theory. Psychological

Review, 77(5). 419-450. doi:10.1037/h0029810

Harris, J. D. (1943). Habituatory response decrement in the intact organism. Psychological

Bulletin, 40(6), 385-422. doi:10.1037/h0053918

Humphrey, G. (1933). The nature of learning: in its relation to the living system. London: Routledge.

James, A. L., & Barry, R. J. (1980). Respiratory and vascular responses to simple visual

stimuli in autistics, retardates and normals. Psychophysiology, 17(6), 541-547.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1980.tb02294.x

Keen, R. (1964). Effects of auditory stimuli on sucking behavior in the human

neonate. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1(4), 348-354. doi:10.1016/0022-

0965(64)90027-X

Kenzer, A. L., Ghezzi, P. M., & Fuller, T. (2013). Stimulus specificity and dishabituation of

operant responding in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 100(1),

61-78. doi:10.1002/jeab.29

Kientz, M. A., & Dunn, W. (1997). A comparison of the performance of children with and

without autism on the sensory profile. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy:

Official Publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association, 51(7), 530-537.

doi:10.5014/ajot.51.7.530

Koepke, J. E., & Pribham, K. H. (1966). Habituation of GSR as a function of stimulus

duration and spontaneous activity. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 61,

3, 442-448.

Lehner, G. F. J. (1941). A study of the extinction of unconditioned reflexes. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 29(6), 435-456. doi:10.1037/h0058702

Madison, L. S., Madison, J. K., & Adubato, S. A. (1986). Infant behavior development in

relation to fetal movement and habituation. Child Development, 57(6), 1475-1482.

doi:10/111/j.146-8624.1986.tb00472.x

“Maternal, Infant, and Child Health.” Office of Disease and Prevention and Health Promotion,

https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/maternal-infant-and-

child-health/objectives.

Mazur, J. E. (1998). Learning and Behavior (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

McSweeney, F. K. (2004). Dynamic changes in reinforcer effectiveness: Satiation and

habituation have different implications for theory and practice. The Behavior Analyst /

MABA, 27(2), 171.

McSweeney, F. K., & Murphy, E. S. (2000). Criticisms of the satiety hypothesis as an

explanation for within-session decreases in responding. Journal of the Experimental

Analysis of Behavior, 74, 347-361.

McSweeney, F. K., & Roll, J. M. (1998). Do animals satiate or habituate to repeatedly

presented reinforcers? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 428-442.

doi:10.3758/BF03208818

McSweeney, F. K., & Swindell, S. (1999). General-process theories of motivation revisited:

The role of habituation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 437-457. doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.125.4.437

Muenssinger, J., Matuz, T., Schleger, F., Kiefer-Schmidt, I., Goelz, R., Wacker-Gussmann,

A., . . . Preissl, H. (2013). Auditory habituation in the fetus and neonate: An fMEG

study.Developmental Science, 16(2), 287-295. doi:10.1111/desc.12025

O’Gorman, J. G., Mangan, G. L., & Gowen, J. A. (1970). Selective habituation of galvanic

skin response component of orientation reaction to an auditory stimulus.

Psychophysiology, 6, 716-721.

Rankin, C. H., Abrams, T., Barry, R. J., Bhatnagar, S., Clayton, D. F., Colombo, J., … &

McSweeney, F. K. (2009). Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description

of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiology of learning and memory,

92(2), 135-138.

Razrin, G. (1971). Mind in Evolution: AN East-West Synthesis of Learnt Behavior and

Cognition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Rescorla, R. A. (1969). Pavlovian conditioned inhibition. Psychological Bulletin, 72(2), 77-94.

Rodgers, S. J., Hepburn, S., & Wehner, E. (2003). Parent reports of sensory symptoms in

toddlers with autism and those with other developmental disorders. Journal of Autims

and Developmental Disorders, 33, 631-642.

Saayman, G., Ames, E. W., & Moffett, A. (1964). Response to novelty as an indicator of

visual discrimination in the human infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1(2),

189-198. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(64)90021-9

Stevens, S., & Gruzelier, J. (1984). Electrodermal activity to auditory stimuli in autistic,

retarded, and normal children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 14(3), 245-

260. doi:10.1007/BF02409577

Szabo, T. G. (2013). Toward an account of habituation patterns in adolescents with high functioning

autism. [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Nevada, Reno.

Tighe, T. J., & Leaton, R. N. (1976). Habituation: perspective from Child development Animal

Behavior and Neurophysiology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thompson, R. F., & Spencer, W. A. (1966). Habituation: A model phenomenon for the

study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychological Review, 73(1), 16-43.

doi:10.1037/h0022681

Thompson, R. F. (2009). Habituation: A history. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92(2),

127-134. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2008.07.011

Welch, M. J. (1974). Infants’ visual attention to varying degrees of novelty. Child Development,

45(2), 344-350. doi:10.111/j.1467-8624.1974.tb00602.x

Wetherford, M. J., & Cohen, L. B. (1973). Developmental changes in infant visual

preferences for novelty and familiarity. Child Development, 44(3), 416-424.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1973.tb02175.x

Zimny, G. H., & Miller, F. L. (1966). Orienting and adaptive cardiovascular responses to

heat and cold. Psychophysiology, 3(1), 81-92. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1966.tb02683.x