A Practitioner Model for Increasing Eye Contact in Children With Autism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many teaching techniques for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) require the instructor to gain the child's eye contact prior to delivering an instructional demand, the literature contains notably few procedures that reliably produce this outcome. To address this problem, we evaluated the effects of a sequential model for increasing eye contact in children with ASD. The model included the following phases: contingent praise only (for eye contact), contingent edibles plus praise, stimulus prompts plus contingent edibles and praise, contingent video and praise, schedule thinning, and maintenance evaluations for up to 2 years. Results indicated that the procedures increased eye contact for 20 participants (one additional participant did not require consequences). For 16 participants, praise (alone) was not sufficient to support eye contact; however, high levels of eye contact were typically maintained with these participants when therapists used combined schedules of intermittent edibles or video and continuous praise. We discuss some limitations of this model and directions for future research on increasing eye contact for children with ASD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it