Abstract
The purpose of this review is to identify the application of eye-gaze stimulus preference assessment as well as the various characteristics of those assessments in the research literature. We conducted a systematic review that identified 18 articles using eye gaze to identify preferred stimuli. Of those studies, seven were used to determine a preference between biological and geometric motion, six were used to identify differences in social versus nonsocial stimuli, four looked at identifying preferred tangible items as potential reinforcers, and one looked at identifying preference for circumscribed interests related objects in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Implications for future research are also presented.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in review.
*Annaz, D., Campbell, R., Coleman, M., Milne, E., & Swettenham, J. (2012). Young children with autism spectrum disorder do not preferentially attend to biological motion. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 42, 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1256-3
Beukelman, D., & Light, J. (2020). Augmentative and alternative communication. Brookes.
*Buhrow, M., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (2003). Preferences of students with profound mental retardation and healthy, full-term infants. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891-4222(03)00011-8
*Byrum, H. A. (2014). Evaluating the effects of reinforcer quality on academic skill acquisition with students with significant disabilities [Master’s thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1406309104&disposition=inline
*Cannella-Malone, H., Sabielny, L., & Tullis, C. (2015). Using eye gaze to identify reinforcers for individuals with severe multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 680–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.231
Chita-Tegmark, M. (2016). Social attention in ASD: A review and meta-analysis of eye-tracking studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 48, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.10.011
Conyers, C., Doole, A., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Yu, D. C., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-49
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C., Bowman, L., Hagopian, L., Owens, J., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491
Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., & Bowman, L. G. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101(1), 15–25.
*Fleming, C., Wheeler, G., Cannella-Malone, H., Basbagill, A., Chung, Y., & Day, K. (2010). An evaluation of the use of eye gaze to measure preference of individuals with severe physical and developmental disabilities. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(4), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.3109/17518421003705706
*Franchini, M., de Wilde, H., Glaser, B., Gentaz, E., Eliez, S., & Schaer, M. (2016). Brief Report: A preference for biological motion predicts a reduction in symptom severity 1 year later in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7(143), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00143
Gage, N. A., Cook, B. G., & Reichow, B. (2017). Publication bias in special education meta-analyses. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917691016
Graff, R. B., & Karsten, A. M. (2012). Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities: A survey of current practices. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391822
Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., Canipe, V. S., & Gardner, S. M. (1991). A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(3), 537–552.
*Guillory, S., Baskett, V., Grosman, H., McLaughlin, C., Isenstein, E., Wilkinson, E., Weissman, J., Britvan, B., Trelles, M., Halpern, D., Buxbaum, J., Siper, P., Wang, A., Kolevzon, A., & Foss-Feig, J. (2020, February 20). Social visual attentional engagement and memory in Phelan-McDermid syndrome and autism spectrum disorder: An eye-tracking study. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/42d3f
Heinicke, M. R., Carr, J. E., & Copsey, C. J. (2019). Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities using alternative stimulus modalities: A systematic review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 847–869. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.565
*Hong, M., Guilfoyle, J., Mooney, L., Wink, L., Pedapati, E., Shaffer, R., Sweeney, J., & Erickson, C. (2017). Eye gaze and pupillary response in Angelman syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 68, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.06.011
Ivancic, M. T., & Bailey, J. S. (1996). Current limits to reinforcer identification for some persons with profound multiple disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 77–92.
Karsten, A. M., Carr, J. E., & Lepper, T. L. (2011). Description of a practitioner model for identifying preferred stimuli with individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Behavior Modification, 35(4), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511405184
*Klin, A., Lin, D., Gorrindo, P., Ramsay, G., & Jones, W. (2009). Two-year-olds with autism orient to nonsocial contingencies rather than biological motion. Nature, 459(7244), 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07868
Ledford, J., Lane, J. D., & Barton, E. E. (2019). Methods of teaching in early education. Routledge.
Logan, K., & Gast, D. (2001). Conducting preference assessments and reinforcer testing for individuals with profound multiple disabilities: Issues and procedures. Exceptionality, 9, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327035EX0903_3
National Institute on Deafness & Other Communication Disorders. (2017, October 31). Apraxia of speech. National Institutes of Health. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/apraxia-speech
*Navab, A. (2016, September) The use of eye-tracking as an assessment measure for social attention in autism spectrum disorder [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara]. eScholarship. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9k9828gd
Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(3), 249–255.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906.
*Pierce, K., Conant, D., Hazin, R., Stoner, R., & Desmond, J. (2011). Preference for geometric patterns early in life as a risk factor for autism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68(1), 101–109.
*Pierce, K., Marinero, S., Hazin, R., McKenna, B., Barnes, C., & Malige, A. (2016). Eye-tracking reveals abnormal visual preference for geometric images as an early biomarker of an ASD subtype associated with increased symptom severity. Biological Psychiatry, 79(8), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.03.032
Reid, D. H., Phillips, J. F., & Green, C. W. (1991). Teaching persons with profound multiple handicaps: A review of the effects of behavioral research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 319–336.
Resetar, J. L., & Noell, G. H. (2008). Evaluating preference assessments for use in the general education population. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(3), 447–451. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-447
Rush, K. S., Mortenson, B. P., & Birch, S. E. (2010). Evaluation of preference assessment procedures for use with infants and toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation & Therapy, 6(1), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100893
Sargent, J., Clarke, M., Price, K., Griffiths, T., & Swettenham, J. (2013). Use of eye‐pointing by children with cerebral palsy: what are we looking at? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(5), 477–485.
*Sasson, N., & Touchstone, E. (2014). Visual attention to competing social and object images by preschool children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 44, 584–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1910-z
*Shaffer, R., Pedapati, E., Shic, F., Gaietto, K., Bowers, K., Wink, L., & Erickson, C. (2017). Brief report: Diminished gaze preference for dynamic social interaction scenes in youth with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 47, 506–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2975-2
*Shi, L., Zhou, Y., Ou, J., Gong, J., Wang, S., Cui, X., Lyu, H., Zhao, J., & Luo, X. (2015). Different visual preference patterns in response to simple and complex dynamic social stimuli in preschool-aged children with autism spectrum disorders. PloS One, 10(3), e0122280. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122280
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127
Spevack, S., Wright, L., Yu, C. T., Walters, K. L., & Holborn, S. (2008). Passive and active approach responses in preference assessment for children with profound multiple disabilities and minimal movement. Journal on Developmental Disabilities = Le journal sur les handicaps du development, 14, 61–68.
Tiger, J. H., & Kliebert, M. L. (2011). Stimulus preference assessment. In J. K. Luiselli (Ed.), Teaching and behavior support for children and adults with autism spectrum disorder: A practitioner's guide (pp. 30–37). Oxford University Press.
Tobii. (2021). https://www.tobii.com/group/about/this-is-eye-tracking/
Tullis, C. A., Cannella-Malone, H. I., Basbigill, A. R., Yeager, A., Fleming, C. V., Payne, D., & Wu, P. F. (2011). Review of the choice and preference assessment literature for individuals with severe to profound disabilities. Education & Training in Autism & Developmental Disabilities, 46, 576–595.
Virués-Ortega, J., Pritchard, K., Grant, R. L., North, S., Hurtado-Parrado, C., Lee, M. S., Temple, B., Julio, F., & Yu, C. T. (2014). Clinical decision making and preference assessment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 119(2), 151–170.
Wagner, S., Buchanan, J. A., Bailey, J., Andresen, F. J., & Omlie, C. (2020). The use of stimulus preference assessments for persons with neurocognitive disorder: A literature review. Clinical Gerontologist, 43(3), 243–255 https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2019.1670313
*Wang, Q., Hu, Y., Zhang, Y., Zou, X., Li, S., Fang, F., & Yi, L. (2018). Children with autism spectrum disorder prefer looking at repetitive movements in a preferential looking paradigm. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 48, 2821–2831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3546-5
*Wheeler, G. M. (2009). An evaluation of the use of eye gaze to measure preference for individuals with multiple disabilities [Master’s thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1250703534&disposition=inline
*Wilson, C., Brock, J., & Palermo, R. (2010). Attention to social stimuli and facial identity recognition skills in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(12), 1004–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01340.x
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Riden, B.S., Snyder, S.M., Fowkes, C.L. et al. Using Eye Gaze Preference Assessments to Identify Preferred Stimuli: A Systematic Review. Educ. Treat. Child. 45, 305–320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-022-00076-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-022-00076-4