Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice © 2018 American Psychological Association

2018, Vol. 18, No. 3, 288 –304 2372-9414/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000124

Technological Advances in the Experimental Analysis

of Human Behavior

Valdeep Saini and Henry S. Roane

Upstate Medical University

The experimental analysis of human behavior (EAHB) involves the study of basic
operant and respondent phenomena with human subjects and is a well-established
proving ground for exploring behavioral principles and processes that may be difficult
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

to study in applied settings. EAHB has significant implications for the understanding of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

human behavior in typical environments and could assist in translating findings from
the basic laboratory to areas of social importance. Early research in EAHB relied
heavily on analyzing gross motor responses using cumbrous stimuli and apparatus,
which have both logistic and analytic limitations. Fortunately, the advent of techno-
logical innovation has revolutionized how EAHB can be conducted as well as the future
of these research methodologies. We present a discussion on technology as applied to
EAHB and contrast modern methods to those historically used. We also offer strategies
for how technologies could be incorporated into EAHB research as well as challenges
that the behavioral scientist might encounter when embarking on a technologically
sophisticated EAHB investigation.

Keywords: experimental analysis, humans, operant, technology

The EAHB has a long-standing tradition in
the study of operant behavior. Indeed, Skinner
(1938, 1953) noted in The Behavior of Organ-
isms and further echoed in Science and Human
Behavior that any natural science of behavior
might require the study of human behavior un-
der well-controlled experimental conditions.
Such study could facilitate an understanding of
human behavior in the natural world and ulti-
mately lead to prediction and modification of
socially meaningful and productive behavior.
Further, it is well established that experimental
research with humans complements nonhuman
operant research, exercises in behavioral inter-
pretation, and applied practical application
(Baron, Perone, & Galizio, 1991).
The EAHB (which is sometimes referred to
colloquially as “human-laboratory” or “human-
operant” research [although EAHB is not lim-
This article was published Online First June 21, 2018.
Valdeep Saini and Henry S. Roane, Department of Pedi-
atrics, Upstate Medical University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Valdeep Saini, Department of Pediatrics, Upstate
Medical University, 750 East Adams Street, Syracuse NY
13210. E-mail: sainiv@upstate.edu
288
ited to the study of purely operant phenomena])
has served as a crucial proving ground for un-
derstanding behavioral principles (e.g., Hake,
1982) and has at least three fundamental pur-
poses. The first is to identify instances of human
behavior in which the relations among stimuli,
responses, and reinforcers appear to resemble
those studied under the well-controlled condi-
tions of the nonhuman animal laboratory (Baron
et al., 1991). The second is to study the behavior
and cognitions unique to the human subject
such as verbal behavior and derived relational
responding (Dymond & Critchfield, 2001). The
third is to investigate clinically relevant phe-
nomenon under well-controlled laboratory con-
ditions such that basic processes and operant
learning principles that influence treatment out-
comes (for which direct study otherwise might
be contraindicated) can be better examined
(Mace & Critchfield, 2010). These latter types
of investigations navigate both basic and ap-
plied behavioral sciences on factors relevant to
clinical practice and evaluate variables or meth-
odological refinements to promote transfer of
research-derived technologies (Lerman, 2003).
Human-laboratory studies have been pub-
lished in basic and applied behavioral research
journals since the inception of controlled oper-
 TECH IN EAHB
ant and respondent research (Dymond & Critch-
field, 2002; Kangas & Hackenberg, 2009). The
EAHB has traversed a number of domains in-
cluding behavioral pharmacology (e.g., Branch,
1991), behavioral persistence (e.g., Dube,
Ahearn, Lionello-DeNolf, & McIlvane, 2009),
choice and stimulus preference (Navarick,
1982), social and verbal behavior (Critchfield,
2010), stimulus control (e.g., Buskist & Miller,
1982), and treatment relapse (e.g., Pritchard,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hoerger, & Mace, 2014).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The EAHB has historically focused on direct
observation of overt responses that are defined
topographically and recorded manually. For ex-
ample, Roane, Lerman, and Vorndran (2001)
evaluated the reinforcing efficacy of preferred
stimuli under progressive-ratio schedules of re-
inforcement wherein the schedule requirement
to earn the reinforcer was systematically in-
creased within an observation period and re-
sponding was evaluated in a behavioral eco-
nomic framework. For each participant, coarse
locomotive response forms were followed by
gross reinforcer delivery. Participants were re-
quired to press buttons, move switches to dif-
ferent locations, or touch a paper that was taped
to a table. The experimenter then manually de-
livered the reinforcer (e.g., children’s toys) and
manually recorded response occurrences (the
dependent measure). Such a reliance on manual
operations in EAHB may limit the ability to
study behavioral principles in a more efficient
(and potentially cost-effective) manner, and
may inadvertently introduce experimenter influ-
ence.
Although the procedures described in studies
like those conducted by Roane et al. (2001)
marked an important advancement in EAHB,
growth in information technology, computer
science, and machine intelligence marks a new
frontier for behavioral science and how future
research in EAHB could be conducted (Luiselli
& Fischer, 2016). Technological innovations
have permeated the social and medical sciences
(e.g., advancements in imaging technology),
and their application to behavioral science
should be no exception. With the advent of
computing, storage, Internet, mobile, and vir-
tual technologies, EAHB is ripe for benefitting
from these innovations. Indeed, the cumbrous
studies of EAHB past need not pave the future
for how human behavior is studied under con-
trolled experimental conditions. It is likely that
289
many aspects of the experimental manipulation
including antecedent stimuli, measured re-
sponse forms, reinforcers, and associated con-
tingencies could be streamlined, and at mini-
mum automated, in a way similar to what is
conducted in the nonhuman animal laboratory.
The purpose of the present review is to dis-
cuss the methods, apparatus, and stimuli in-
cluded in EAHB and to document the techno-
logical evolution of human-laboratory research
over the decades. We discuss how technology
has allowed more commensurate comparisons
to nonhuman animal research and increased
EAHB’s social validity and direct relevance to
practice. We aim to describe how technology
has advanced the mechanics of EAHB and pro-
vide a broad overview of how information and
industrial science can be leveraged during these
investigations. Finally, we provide recommen-
dations and considerations for researchers who
wish to pursue EAHB in the 21st century.
A Historical Perspective on the Use of
Technology in the EAHB (1960 –2000)
Computer control, automated data acquisi-
tion, and rapid digital analysis have a long his-
tory in human-laboratory research and these
methods have increased in sophistication over
the decades. Research in EAHB dates back to as
early as the 1960s and the use of technology is
evident even during this period (e.g., Findley,
1966; Hefferline & Keenan, 1961; Hutchinson
& Azrin, 1961). In these studies, the experimen-
tal setting was designed to mimic the arrange-
ment of the nonhuman animal laboratory, and
behaviors of interest were observed, measured,
and recorded in a similar manner (e.g., using
cumulative responses as the primary dependent
measure). For example, when studying the ef-
fects of response cost on human behavior,
Weiner (1962) had subjects sit in an empty
room and face a screen with different-colored
lightbulbs which would indicate a given contin-
gency. Moreover, Weiner had participants press
levers as the primary response form (similar to
basic studies that used rats and pigeons as sub-
jects). However, even during these early exper-
iments, researchers attempted to take advantage
of the technology that was available at the time
(e.g., Weiner used switch circuitry to control
when the different lightbulbs would be illumi-
nated).
 290 SAINI AND ROANE
Greater specialized apparatuses and more fo-
cused experimental stimuli became prominent
as EAHB research advanced (Hyten & Reilly,
1992). These experiments were in part a product
of technological advancements in the early
1970s and 1980s (e.g., Bigelow, Emurian, &
Brady, 1975). These decades were particularly
important for scientific research at large because
they marked the advent of the world’s first
microprocessor, first computer language, first
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
hard-disk drive, and the conception of the In-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ternet.
During the 1980s, a number of research prac-
tices in EAHB evolved as a product of both the
available technologies at the time and research
advances in operant and respondent condition-
ing. A gradual shift in research methods in-
cluded (a) studying more naturalistic targets
such as reading and artwork compared with
discrete simple responses (e.g., lever presses;
Bernstein, 1988), (b) session durations decreas-
ing from long individual sessions to short re-
peated sessions with short intersession intervals,
and (c) moving away from primary uncondi-
tioned reinforcers (e.g., food) to secondary or
exchangeable conditioned reinforcers (e.g., to-
kens for young children, money for adults,
course credit for college students; Galizio &
Buskist, 1988).
Programmed stimuli also increased in sophis-
tication by intentionally modifying the nature in
which subjects interacted with the experimental
interface. For example, Anderson, Buskist, and
Miller (1981) investigated the effects of varying
autoshaping and automaintenance schedules on
responding in 32 children aged 9 to 11 years
old. They had children sit in front of a wooden
box with a clown’s face painted on it wherein
responding on the clown’s nose (illuminated
with a red light bulb) would produce pennies in
the clown’s mouth. Using this interface, they
obtained results consistent with nonhuman ani-
mal studies of autoshaping and automainte-
nance. One limitation of many EAHB studies
during this period was that individuals could
interact or otherwise manipulate the reinforcers
and stimuli in a manner that interfered with the
experimental task (e.g., Anderson et al. (1981)
found that some children played with the pen-
nies in the clown’s mouth instead of touching
the clown’s nose). As a result of these adjunc-
tive behaviors, evoked in part by the experimen-
tal arrangement and arranged reinforcers (i.e.,
pennies), many individuals recruited for EAHB
studies did not respond in the predicted pattern
or did not meet certain “mastery criteria” set
forth by the experimenter (Galizio & Buskist,
1988).
The late 1980s also saw a period where ex-
perimenters began disguising the experimental
task in a gamelike environment. Case, Ploog,
and Fantino (1990) were perhaps one of the first
to demonstrate the power of game-based learn-
ing in EAHB investigations when they studied
the extent to which informative and uninforma-
tive stimuli controlled observing responses in a
computer game. These researchers arranged
contingencies of reinforcement for lever press-
ing within the context of a “Star Trek” computer
game. Participants (college students) were re-
quired to engage in observing responses based
on game feedback and subsequently had the
opportunity to destroy Klingon invaders. Case
and colleagues’ results were consistent with the
conditioned reinforcement hypothesis and they
concluded lever pressing during the Star Trek
game was an appropriate task to address their
experimental question.
The technological innovations exploited by
Case et al. (1990) and others were designed to
increase participant interest and decrease bore-
dom over the course of the experiment, but they
also showed that meaningful and systematic
data could be obtained from EAHB studies that
relied on complex computer games when game
characteristics were adjusted to answer a mean-
ingful question related to human behavior.
Advances in EAHB depended on innovations
and refinements to methodology, which came in
large part due to technological advances in the
1990s and 2000s. As noted by Dymond and
Critchfield (2001, 2002), this era marked a pe-
riod of growth for EAHB with studies related to
basic principles of reinforcement, punishment,
and stimulus control increasing steadily
throughout the decade. Despite the large growth
in EAHB over these decades, some researchers
(e.g., Lattal & Perone, 1998) still questioned
how experimenters could create functional an-
alogues of the procedures developed in the non-
human animal laboratory. Fortunately, one so-
lution to these concerns is that technological
innovation has increased the experimenter’s
ability to control and design experiments more
closely in a manner similar to what occurs in
basic studies.
 TECH IN EAHB
Present Applications of Technology in the
EAHB: Existing Trends and
Recommendations
The EAHB has evolved markedly since the
early studies like those described by Weiner
(1962). However, a review of the literature sug-
gests that there are a number of recent studies
that still rely on the technologies available dur-
ing those early years as opposed to leveraging
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
more recent technological advancements (e.g.,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Boyle, Samaha, Slocum, Hoffmann, & Bloom,
2016; Glover, Roane, Kadey, & Grow, 2008;
Hoffmann, Samaha, Bloom, & Boyle, 2017;
Johnson, Vladescu, Kodak, & Sidener, 2017;
Kelley, Liddon, Ribeiro, Greif, & Podlesnik,
2015; Saini & Fisher, 2016; Trosclair-Lasserre,
Lerman, Call, Addison, & Kodak, 2008). In this
section, we describe current trends in EAHB as
it relates to technology and the methodological
advantages of using technology in EAHB re-
search.
The Apparatus
In nonhuman animal studies of operant be-
havior, experiments are typically conducted
within the operant chamber (cf., Skinner, 1938).
The operant chamber has many benefits includ-
ing controlling specifically which stimuli are
presented, where and how they are arranged in
the chamber, where reinforcers are gathered,
and much of all aspects of the subject’s envi-
ronment. Studies involving human subjects are
not afforded such a luxury as the experiment is
a temporary moment in time that allows the
researcher to examine behavior under strict and
artificial, yet controlled, conditions. That is, tra-
ditional EAHB research using human subjects
has had difficulty modifying the subject’s envi-
ronment as precisely as nonhuman studies.
However, one advancement in this area, which
has been a direct result of technological ad-
vances, has been with the apparatus used in
contemporary human-laboratory research. That
is, one benefit from technological advancement
is that the apparatus can be manipulated in a
multitude of ways to fulfill the needs of the
experimenter.
Previous EAHB research might have relied
on behavioral tasks that required gross motor
actions (e.g., placing blocks into buckets, sort-
ing cards, pressing buttons, flipping switches,
291
stuffing envelopes, etc.) and thus required a
number of materials for the completion of the
task. In these studies, it is somewhat difficult to
discern the apparatus from the response materi-
als, the behavioral task, or the experimental
stimuli at large. Although in some cases this
distinction is not necessary, in others it might be
crucial. For example, if the experimenter ar-
ranges placing blocks into a bucket as a re-
sponse form, the subject is given the option to
engage in other responses not relevant to the
experimental question such as stacking the
blocks or sorting by size and color. That is,
the subject could engage in behavior not rele-
vant to the task, at which point the arranged
apparatus could be malformed (similar to what
Anderson et al., 1981 observed in their au-
toshaping experiment). Consequently, other
controlling variables may evoke undesired be-
havior because the apparatus has allowed for
such variation to occur.
We suggest that given how commonplace
technology has become in the modern world, an
appropriate apparatus for future EAHB research
is the computer, smartphone, or tablet upon
which the experiment can be executed. It is
conceivable that many of the subjects entering
the EAHB laboratory (e.g., college students) are
familiar with these apparatuses and require little
instruction on how to operate them. Moreover,
when given the experimental task, the apparatus
can be “locked” in such a way to prevent the
subject from engaging in any other responses
that the apparatus does not permit (e.g., return-
ing to the “home screen”). In this case, the
subject’s behavior and all experimental events
are recorded and executed by the apparatus
much like those of nonhuman animal studies.
This type of apparatus (i.e., one based on tech-
nology as opposed to gross response forms) is
beneficial because, given some understanding
of computer programming, the experimenter
can design exactly how the apparatus is manip-
ulated and controlled, akin to the nonhuman
animal laboratory.
Kuroda, Cançado, and Podlesnik (2016) eval-
uated resistance to change and resurgence of
operant behavior using a computer task. In their
study, subjects had to respond on different but-
tons using the computer mouse and the entire
task was executed by the computer (e.g., rein-
forcer deliveries, change-over delays, stimulus
randomization, etc.). Similarly, Dube, McIl-
 292 SAINI AND ROANE
vane, Mazzitelli, and McNamara (2003) evalu-
ated resistance to change in children with intel-
lectual disabilities and incorporated touch-
screen technology into the apparatus and
computer-based gaming into the behavioral
task. In both studies, the use of either a com-
puter-based task or a touchscreen-based task
proved to be useful in addressing the research
question.
Touchscreen technology is becoming in-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
creasingly more prevalent in EAHB studies
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(e.g., Sweeney et al., 2014) and we suggest that
the future of the apparatus and behavioral task
in EAHB research might continue to manifest in
this form. In fact, a large body of literature in
EAHB has moved in the direction of using
computers as the main response apparatus (Kes-
tner & Peterson, 2017). An ideal behavioral task
might be one where subjects interact with the
apparatus in a game-based format and the pro-
grammed contingencies come to control behav-
ior in a manner relevant to the research ques-
tion. That is, from the subject’s perspective,
they are simply interacting with a mobile game,
but from the experimenter’s perspective, valu-
able information and data are being gleaned
from the subject’s interaction with the game.
For example, Bizo, Remington, D’Souza,
Heighway, and Baston (2002) evaluated the ef-
fects of variable-ratio schedules of reinforce-
ment on responding during a treasure-hunt
game on a computer.
Additionally, leveraging computer technol-
ogy by embedding experiments or specific tasks
into popular video games could be a viable
method to maintain participant interest (i.e.,
minimize behavior not related to the experimen-
tal task). Although any repetitive task could
evoke other nontarget behavior, it is reasonable
to assume that those apparatuses that incorpo-
rate video games into their experimental ar-
rangement are likely to maintain subjects’ in-
terest over the course of the human operant
experiment (assuming there are contingencies
of reinforcement programmed into interacting
with the game).
The technological advancement of the appa-
ratus is not limited only to computers and mo-
bile devices. Other types of technologies used in
applied and practical applications could be use-
ful in EAHB. For example, Goodwin, Velicer,
and Intille (2008) have suggested that a telem-
etric device could be used to collect data on
operant behavior. Telemetric systems are wired
or wireless devices that receive and transmit
data over distances (e.g., through radio or ultra-
sonic transmission). Active telemetric devices
have been used in a number of applied applica-
tions including meteorology, transportation, ag-
riculture, and law enforcement, among others.
Telemetric devices in EAHB are typically those
that can be held by hand, like a tablet, with
which the experimenter can manually record
and report occurrences of observed behaviors.
Indeed, Jackson and Dixon (2007) used a type
of telemetric device called a “Pocket PC” to
collect behavioral data during an assessment of
severe problem behavior exhibited by children
with intellectual disabilities (see also Noldus,
1991 and Noldus, Trienes, Hendriksen, Jansen,
& Jansen, 2000 for detailed descriptions of the
mechanics within telemetric devices used for
behavioral observations and measurement).
Another alternative to traditional computer-
based apparatuses are the use of accelerometers.
Motion-sensing devices such as accelerometers
are typically designed to detect human move-
ment and are incorporated into many modern-
day smartphones. If an experimenter was inter-
ested in a research question that could be
answered in a human-laboratory preparation
that involved motion, an accelerometer could be
an appropriate technology (e.g., monitoring
“healthy behavior” such as daily activity levels;
Dennison, Morrison, Conway, & Yardley,
2013). This type of device has been useful in
studying physical activity in adults under natu-
ral conditions and could also be useful in the
experimental study of human-laboratory behav-
ior (Sasaki, da Silva, da Costa, & John, 2016).
For example, in EAHB, researchers could use
accelerometers to measure response latency un-
der varying schedules of reinforcement or ex-
tinction (e.g., reaction time [RT]) such as when
reinforcement is contingent on motion within a
specified time period (i.e., limited hold). Accel-
erometers with increasingly sensitive detection
nodes might also be used in studies of response
shaping to quantify how a given response form
changes (in space) when exposed to reinforce-
ment schedules that demand increasingly suc-
cessive approximations to a terminal response
(e.g., from walking to running).
One limitation of some telemetric devices
and accelerometers is that they might rely on the
experimenter for execution and modulation. For
 TECH IN EAHB
example, an accelerometer might need to be
actively programmed to detect certain motions
during different phases of an experiment (e.g.,
reinforcement for climbing vs. reinforcement
for running) and might not be able to detect
changes in responding as a direct function of the
arranged experimental contingency (e.g., rate of
running as a function of ratio or interval sched-
ules of reinforcement). However, prompting
and feedback (e.g., notifications) with continu-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ous measurement in the background is possible
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with devices such as FitBits or smart watches,
which could be programmed to measure spe-
cific responses for specified periods of time
during phases (e.g., heart rate during rest vs.
during aerobic exercise). Ultimately, telemetric
devices and accelerometers might be more ap-
propriate used as technologically savvy mea-
surement tools instead of experimental appara-
tuses.
Antecedent Stimuli
The issue of antecedent stimuli is closely
related to that of the apparatus. In the nonhuman
animal laboratory, stimuli have taken a number
of forms including visual, auditory, and olfac-
tory cues that acquire discriminative control
over a given response. For instance, a rat in an
operant chamber might experience a blue light
that evokes pressing a lever or a pungent odor
that evokes pulling a chain. In early EAHB
research, the discriminative stimuli were those
related to the behavioral task (e.g., the sight of
a button evoked pressing the button). In tech-
nologically sophisticated experiments, the re-
sponse materials remain closely tied to the be-
havioral task, however, their presence and
absence can be preprogrammed and automated
in a manner similar to nonhuman laboratory
studies.
Recently, Bolívar, Cox, Barlow, and Dallery
(2017) evaluated the role of inactive control
responses during resurgence of human behav-
ior. In their study, the antecedent stimuli were
three colored circles on a computer screen that
provided different consequences when selected.
Across conditions, the location of those stimuli
was purposefully randomized. Additionally,
there was a scoreboard that accumulated points
for correct responding. In this study, all ante-
cedent stimuli were purposefully manipulated
and carefully calibrated specific to the experi-
293
mental question. Had this study been conducted
using physical stimuli (i.e., stimuli that require
manual manipulation such as sorting or stacking
blocks), a number of these manipulations could
not have been implemented (e.g., changing col-
ors, stimuli disappearing and reappearing in dif-
ferent locations across phases). Manipulating
stimuli and controlling many aspects of the ex-
periment in a manner similar to that used by
Bolívar et al. (2017) would require some basic
knowledge of software development and com-
puter programming. However, as is evident, this
allows the experimenter to control precisely
what occurs and does not occur during the ex-
periment.
Designing experiments that manipulate ante-
cedent stimuli in a manner similar to Bolívar et
al. (2017) is only the beginning of how technol-
ogy could be used in future EAHB studies. That
is, discriminative stimuli are any environmental
stimuli that reliably evoke behavior due to a
correlated history of reinforcement. Perhaps the
most interesting technological advancement
pertinent to antecedent and discriminative stim-
uli is the future of virtual reality. As virtual
reality technologies evolve, subjects can inter-
act with antecedent stimuli in a multitude of
other ways that could be relevant to EAHB
research. Virtual reality could allow the partic-
ipant to be immersed in the experimental task
and engage in digital behaviors (e.g., those oc-
curring in the virtual world) that could be mea-
sured and analyzed by the researcher. For ex-
ample, the experimenter could evaluate the
effects of different punishment schedules on
digital behaviors which may not otherwise be
possible in current EAHB research due to prac-
tical or ethical concerns.
Response Forms and Measurement
The use of nonarbitrary responses (i.e., so-
cially significant behaviors) makes it difficult to
control the history of reinforcement for the tar-
get response, therefore, EAHB experiments
have typically relied on the use of arbitrary
response forms (Mace & Critchfield, 2010).
Technological advances have made a large im-
pact on which response forms are included dur-
ing EAHB research and the manner in which
they are measured. As previously mentioned,
prior EAHB research has relied on gross-motor
responses that have analyzed the effects of pre-
 294 SAINI AND ROANE
arranged contingencies on those responses.
However, with the growth of technology in be-
havioral science, and in EAHB in particular, the
measured response has become more focused
over time.
In nonhuman animal research, the response is
typically a lever-press (when rats are subjects)
or a key-peck (when pigeons are subjects). The
experiment and arranged contingencies are de-
signed to observe changes on these relatively
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
simple response forms. In EAHB research using
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
computers and tablets as the apparatus, the re-
sponse has typically taken the form of a mouse-
click selection or a fine-motor screen selection
(e.g., touch response), respectively (e.g., Ro-
mano & St. Peter, 2017). Consistent with his-
torical traditions in EAHB, researchers continue
to be interested in the effects of operant contin-
gencies on relatively simple responses, similar
to the nonhuman laboratory. For instance, Ras-
mussen and Newland (2008) evaluated the ef-
fects of reinforcement and punishment under
concurrent variable interval schedules of mon-
etary reinforcement. They evaluated choice re-
sponding and applied the matching law to their
data which all measured simple mouse clicks on
a computer. These types of responses have be-
come abundant over the years in EAHB re-
search and will likely continue to perpetuate in
the future.
Using response forms based on technology
are presupposed on the notion that the subject
has a preexperimental history with the apparatus
and can respond appropriately with little to no
training. Therefore, these types of responses
may not be appropriate for EAHB research that
includes subjects with impaired decision-
making skills (however, see Sweeney et al.,
2014 and Dube, Thompson, Silveira, & Nevin,
2017 who included children with intellectual
disabilities as participants that responded using
touchscreen computer tasks).
An additional consideration related to the re-
sponse form is measurement. We suggest, like
many other aspects of the experiment, that mea-
suring the target response be automated and
programmed into the apparatus. Using com-
puter software that collects and analyzes data in
an ongoing (real time) manner is an efficient
strategy for data collection compared with tra-
ditional pen-and-paper techniques that domi-
nated the early years of EAHB research
(Sidener, Shabani, & Carr, 2004).
Tapp et al. (2006) collected behavioral data
using computer software and paper-and-pencil
on a fixed-time schedule. They found that the
computerized method took less time to collect
and produced more accurate data relative to the
nondigital counterpart. Note that although Tapp
et al. (2006) produced this outcome, their data
collection software was mediated by the exper-
imenter and collected by an observer (see also
Bullock, Fisher, & Hagopian, 2017). What we
recommend is a system in which data are col-
lected by the computer itself such that the end of
the experiment could produce a simple sum-
mary table of how the subject responded in real
time. This strategy is likely to minimize ob-
server bias or data collection errors that com-
monly occur when data are collected by inde-
pendent observers (Watkins & Pacheco, 2000).
Technological advances have allowed re-
searchers to measure dimensions of behavior
other than (or in addition) to rate, which was
commonly done in early EAHB research. For
example, Alessandri and Cançado (2017) eval-
uated the effects of instructions on the sensitiv-
ity of negatively reinforced behavior using a
human-laboratory framework. Interestingly,
they used force load cells to measure the
amount of force participants were exerting on
the experimental task. They then used this in-
formation to design the subsequent portion of
their study, involving escape from exerting
force. This type of technology could also be
used in studies of resurgence or extinction ef-
fects that aim to examine the magnitude of a
given response. For example, it is well docu-
mented that resurgence is defined by an increase
in response rate of a target response; however, it
is unknown at what magnitude a given response
resurges. With load cells, a researcher could
examine both rate and force of a given response
during tests for resurgence.
It is evident that technology has allowed
EAHB researchers to evaluate different types of
responses (e.g., screen touches during a game
vs. button presses on a wooden clown’s nose) as
well as control what dimensions of the response
are measured (e.g., using accelerometers to
measure motion and load cells to measure force/
magnitude). It is possible that future develop-
ments could impact how other aspects of re-
sponding are treated (e.g., using motion-capture
technology to get precise information on inter-
response times or duration of a given task).
 TECH IN EAHB
Reinforcer Mediation
Studies using pigeons and rats as subjects
arrange automated reinforcer delivery by pro-
gramming desired schedules of reinforcement
into the experimental chamber. That is, the ap-
paratus controls all experimental events and the
experimenter must simply prevent mechanical
failure. This method increases the rapidity with
which rats learn the associated contingency be-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tween responding and reinforcers at a rate
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
greater than manual or “hand-shaped” rein-
forcement (Baum, 1965). Although previous
technologies did not allow for similar automa-
tion in EAHB (or at least more efficiently than
the methods used in the 1990s), recently, exper-
imenters have begun using computer program-
ming techniques to incorporate reinforcement
into the behavioral task.
Previous studies of human-laboratory behav-
ior typically arrange reinforcers that are not tied
to the response but instead follow the response.1
That is, the delivery of the reinforcer is medi-
ated by another individual, typically the exper-
imenter, who injects themselves into the exper-
imental situation in order to reinforce a given
response (e.g., Saini & Fisher, 2016). This al-
lows the experimenter to control when the re-
inforcer is and is not delivered, better arrange
the environmental conditions that lead to the
reinforcer, and to arrange various schedule re-
quirements more easily. Although this method
has proven vastly successful in nonhuman ani-
mal studies and studies in applied practice,
EAHB studies might benefit from an arrange-
ment where the reinforcer is uniquely tied to the
behavioral task and scheduled delivery of said
reinforcer is automated. This strategy could po-
tentially reduce procedural fidelity errors (e.g.,
failing to deliver the reinforcer when prescribed
or delivering it when not prescribed) by provid-
ing reinforcers in a more consistent manner
(Whalen, Liden, Ingersoll, Dallaire, & Liden,
2006). In fact, when reinforcer delivery is au-
tomated, procedural fidelity is likely a moot
issue, as fidelity is (most often) a measure of
how accurately human interventionists imple-
ment the procedures of the experiment (e.g.,
delivering the prescribed consequences at the
correct time). If reinforcer delivery was auto-
mated and controlled by a computer, there
would be no need to measure procedural fidel-
ity.
295
Kangas and Hackenberg (2009) provided a
detailed analysis of various reinforcement
methods used in EAHB. Based on their results,
the historical precedent of using powerful, arbi-
trary, and externally arranged reinforcers is ev-
ident. Commonly used reinforcers included the
use of immediately consumable goods such as
food or liquids as a primary reinforcer (i.e.,
edible items), the use of a conditioned rein-
forcer that could be accumulated and later ex-
changed for other primary or conditioned rein-
forcers (i.e., tokens), and the use of access to
games or leisure activities as a reinforcer (typ-
ically used with children). Some human-
laboratory studies have even used hypothetical
rewards in the study of operant effects on be-
havior (e.g., Rachlin, Raineri, & Cross, 1991).
The use of points during a behavioral task as
a commonly arranged reinforcer has begun
steadily increasing over the decades. Using
points as a reinforcer during an EAHB task
typically entails the use of an analog or digital
counter that advances in relation to some oper-
ant response. This method provides an exem-
plary case of EAHB benefitting from technol-
ogy because the reinforcer is digitally
embedded into the task software and external,
experimenter arranged or delivered reinforcers
might be unnecessary. Using humans as sub-
jects, Doolan and Bizo (2013) reinforced behav-
ioral variability when subjects were learning a
six-digit target sequence. Subjects responded on
a computer screen wherein points on the screen
were accumulated for engaging in varied re-
sponding (i.e., a different sequence of digits
than a target sequence). Doolan and Bizo (2013)
found that points were an effective reinforcer
for behavioral variability, and the researchers
did not need to rely on intervening during the
task to deliver an externally arranged reinforcer
(i.e., one that was not embedded within the
experiment).
1
In this case, “tied to” refers a strict temporal contiguity
between the response and reinforcer. Studies involving hu-
man subjects often attempt to empirically derive preferred
stimuli that function as reinforcers, which are then manually
delivered by an experimenter. This can result in varied
temporal contiguity between response and reinforcer. In
those cases, the reinforcer is “tied to” the response in the
sense that it has been empirically shown to maintain the
response it follows.
 296 SAINI AND ROANE
Alternative to points, the experimenter could
arrange reinforcers that have greater relevance
to the behavioral task (i.e., the operandum itself
modulates and delivers consequences for re-
sponding). For example, Sweeney et al. (2014)
evaluated the effects of analogue sensory rein-
forcers on behavioral persistence in a task that
included touchscreen technology to emit re-
sponses. The experimental stimuli presented on
the touchscreen monitor were colored shapes
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(e.g., blue squares, red circles) that would “pop”
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(i.e., burst and make a noise) when selected.
Additionally, selecting the correct shape pro-
duced digital fireworks that filled the screen for
3 s and produced a chime sound. The experi-
menters conceptualized the use of fireworks and
sound as a sensory reinforcer that was digitally
embedded into the behavioral task (i.e., the re-
inforcer of popping shapes was relevant to the
response of touching shapes on a screen). They
found results consistent with their predictions
when using this method (i.e., the presence of
analogue sensory reinforcers increased behav-
ioral persistence). This strategy of embedded
reinforcement or “digital rewards” is what much
of mobile gaming technology is based upon and
may be a particularly valuable reinforcer for
children (Kiili, 2005; Ronimus, Kujala, Tolva-
nen, & Lyytinen, 2014; see also Hoffmann et
al., 2017).
Kangas and Hackenberg (2009) suggest that
in some cases digitally programmed reinforcers
must be followed by monetary rewards to main-
tain behavior. Indeed, rewards in mobile gam-
ing technology are often exchangeable for real-
world goods. Given the success of digital
reinforcers in real-world environments, their in-
corporation into behavioral science (and EAHB
in particular) appears highly relevant. For ex-
ample, following an experiment the participant
can “trade in” their points for prizes based on
the number of points earned. This could also
incentivize participants to engage in behavior
that is likely going to produce reinforcement.
Future Directions and Applications of
Technology in the EAHB: Relevance to
Behavioral Interventions
Technology is certainly an important aspect
of EAHB research as evidenced by its use
throughout the decades. Growth in information
technology and related fields could continue to
improve many aspects of EAHB experiments in
the future. In particular, there are areas that are
considerably exciting which could shape the
next generation of EAHB research including
virtual reality, machine intelligence, and robot-
ics. These innovations could increase the rele-
vance of EAHB to practical applications and
behavioral interventions.
Virtual and Augmented Reality
Virtual reality allows participants to experi-
ence nonexistent events through computers. As
described above, virtual reality is particularly
interesting with respect to manipulating envi-
ronmental stimuli and it could allow the exper-
imenter to answer questions or solve real-world
problems that might not otherwise be possible
in a real-world setting. For example, one of the
defining characteristics of autism spectrum dis-
order (ASD) is that children avoid social inter-
actions and have a difficult time with social
reciprocity. In a virtual reality preparation, an
EAHB researcher could systematically attempt
to determine the variables that contribute to this
behavioral expression by introducing social el-
ements to the environment. In an applied adap-
tation of this concept, the experimenter could
teach children social skills with specifically pro-
grammed virtual characters and then study the
extent to which those skills generalize to real-
world individuals.
Likewise, virtual reality technologies could
be used to understand the development of be-
havioral aversions or phobias (Garcia-Palacios,
Hoffman, Carlin, Furness, & Botella, 2002; Par-
sons & Rizzo, 2008). For example, virtual real-
ity could assist with understanding which, if
any, schedules of punishment or extinction are
involved in aversion learning. In this case, the
experimenter could control the virtual reality
and systematically evaluate uniquely human be-
havioral patterns such as phobias. Similarly, an
applied investigation using virtual technology
could use systematic desensitization procedures
to expose participants to phobic stimuli progres-
sively before they encounter a real-world event
that historically produces escape behavior (e.g.,
creating a virtual dentist’s office before a child
has a dentist appointment; Raghav et al., 2016).
Augmented realities interject virtual objects
into the real-world environment. That is, an
experimenter develops a virtual object (e.g., a
 TECH IN EAHB
spider for individuals who suffer from arachno-
phobia) and places it into the typical environ-
ment. The use of augmented realities is advan-
tageous for EAHB because they create a
laboratory setting that combines both virtual
and real aspects, allowing the researcher to
study uniquely human phenomenon that
wouldn’t be possible in either a solely virtual
setting or a completely natural setting (e.g.,
exposure to fearful stimuli in the natural envi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ronment without any risk of harm, or a social
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
interaction with a stranger for children with
ASD).
Likewise, one could also leverage 3D print-
ing to help transfer elements of the virtual real-
ity to the real world. In this case, stimuli are not
“virtual” in the sense that they are nonexistent
and cannot be directly interacted with, but in-
stead are real, tangible objects that can be ma-
nipulated (e.g., a 3D printed plastic spider). The
advent of augmented reality, as well as 3D
printing, allow the behavioral scientist to work
within a “virtual environment.” A virtual envi-
ronment is one where contrived or developed
stimuli are embedded into the real world and
contain both virtual and existing stimuli. For
example, a response lever designed in a virtual
reality EAHB experiment could be 3D printed if
the experimenter was interested in nonvirtual
responses on the lever as well. However, given
that both virtual reality and 3D printing are
relatively new technologies, the conditions un-
der which these technologies would be most
valuable to an EAHB researcher will be dictated
by future research.
The application of virtual reality is somewhat
limitless when one considers the number of
experimental questions that cannot be answered
in a real-world setting but could be answered
virtually. Not only does this have relevance to
EAHB but also helps translate EAHB findings
to potentially more applied investigations or
behavioral interventions.
Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
Artificial intelligence is a subfield within
computer science that is closely linked to robot-
ics. The goal of artificial intelligence is to en-
able the development of computers that are able
to complete tasks typically done by people (i.e.,
so-called “androids”). These activities are often
associated with complex human behavior (e.g.,
297
problem solving, decision making, concept for-
mation). The emerging fields of artificial intel-
ligence and robotics could have implications for
how future EAHB studies are conducted. For
example, Kazemi and Stedman-Falls (2016)
suggested that robots could serve as effective
patient simulators during behavioral assess-
ments and that the use of robots during assess-
ment was rated favorably by participants. In-
deed, if robots could serve as patient simulators,
this could have long-lasting implications for
EAHB (e.g., studying side effects of extinction
of a robot programmed to engage in analogue
problem behavior instead of using actual pa-
tients who engage in problem behavior could
minimize risk of harm during the course of the
experiment).
When training new staff or research assistants
on how to interact with patients, one could first
learn the requisite skills with an artificially in-
telligent robot prior to interacting with real in-
dividuals. This could minimize errors in deliv-
ering behavioral interventions and potentially
be more efficient than “learning on the job.” For
example, a functional analysis is a commonly
used assessment procedure designed to deter-
mine the environmental variables that evoke
and maintain severe challenging behavior in
children with ASD (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord,
2003). Implementing functional analysis proce-
dures could be difficult for untrained individu-
als; however, if a robot could simulate child
behavior, a new therapist or staff member could
practice implementing functional analysis pro-
cedures prior to conducting actual assessment
sessions. This type of logic, wherein intelligent
machines are used as patient simulators, could
be applied to a wide range of behavioral assess-
ments.
Similar to virtual reality, intelligent robots
could also be used to teach functional skills to
individuals with social deficits. For instance, if
a child with ASD has difficulty interacting with
others socially, a robot could be used as the first
step in a training program to develop those
skills. Once the child has learned the requisite
skills with the intelligent machine (e.g., greet-
ings, eye contact, turn taking, asking about oth-
ers), an individual relevant to that child’s life
can be introduced to assess for generalization.
Indeed, there is some preliminary evidence to
suggest that robotics can be leveraged to assist
with teaching social-emotional skills to individ-
 298 SAINI AND ROANE
uals with ASD (Tennyson, Kuester, Casteel, &
Nikolopoulos, 2016; Toh, Causo, Tzuo, Chen,
& Yeo, 2016; however, see Begum, Serna, &
Yanco, 2016).
Unexplored Frontiers
The EAHB has a long-standing tradition of
taking advantage of the current technologies to
study human behavior. Although virtual reality,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
augmented reality, 3D printing, robotics, and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
artificial intelligence and promising and emerg-
ing technologies that have begun being incor-
porated into behavioral research, EAHB (and
perhaps behavior analysis more broadly) ap-
pears to be lagging behind in its use of auto-
mated (and virtual) environments to investigate
complex human behavior compared with other
fields of science (e.g., Tarr & Warren, 2002). It
appears as though EAHB is at a turning point
where researchers now have the tools to study
behavioral relations and phenomena that were
not previously possible.
One possible avenue of future research is
studying the development of complex human
interactions by creating a virtual environment
where the behaviors of many subjects can be
studied simultaneously. Historically, behavioral
research has relied on studying the behavior of
one individual at a time and analyzing changes
in each single subject. However, with virtual
environments EAHB researchers can study the
development of language and cognition among
several interactions between individuals (e.g.,
how verbal behavior develops through interac-
tion with a community of listeners). These vir-
tual environments might not even require par-
ticipants to visit a laboratory setting if the
virtual world could be accessed through the
Internet. Such a system, that includes automated
data collection, could have thousands of users
participating in an experiment simultaneously
from their personal computers and their behav-
ioral data could be transmitted to the experi-
menter’s laboratory over the Internet.
Unexplored frontiers will undoubtedly raise
ethical questions for how technology is used in
EAHB research. However, experimenters must
ultimately be held account and held responsible
for how technologies such as virtual and aug-
mented realties are leveraged during the course
of a study. Although the advancement of tech-
nology has certainly been helpful in creating
novel experiments and studying complex be-
havioral relations that were otherwise elusive, it
is possible that a moral barrier exists that would
implicate certain components of virtual experi-
ments as unethical (e.g., trauma or anxiety from
experiencing a virtually aversive event or con-
tingent high magnitude punishers for virtual
responses that could carry over into real-world
settings). Therefore, we recommend that all
EAHB research (virtual or otherwise) continue
to adhere to best practice guidelines and ethical
standards for behavioral research.
Challenges to Using Modern Technologies
in the EAHB
Perhaps the biggest challenge to incorporat-
ing technology into EAHB research comes at
the forefront. Developing a technologically de-
pendent EAHB experiment that functions au-
tonomously would require some basic knowl-
edge of computer hardware and software
development. However, taking the time to learn
the basics of these domains could have poten-
tially fruitful outcomes and aid in the study of
human-laboratory behavior. A number of free
alternatives to learn these methods exist such as
video tutorials on YouTube as well as training
websites (e.g., Codecademy, Linda; see also
Lionello-DeNolf & McIlvane, 2003).
Many of the commonly used applications by
behavioral researchers can be programmed or
modified in some manner. Microsoft Excel, for
example, allows the user to create simple mac-
ros to aid in modifying and working with
spreadsheets. Many Adobe products such as
Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, and
Adobe After Effects can be automated using
JavaScript programming. Apple’s macOS oper-
ating system also allows the experimenter to
automate some of the features of the computer’s
software using JavaScript. There are likely
some applications used by the EAHB scientist
that, if learned to program, could help in devel-
oping experiments in a better and more efficient
manner.
Programming an application that executes an
experiment can be considered a form of prob-
lem solving. One hurdle that must be overcome
when learning programming is determining
which “language” is most appropriate for the
researcher’s goals. A programming language is
a formal set of codes designed to communicate
 TECH IN EAHB
instructions to a computer. There are hundreds
of languages that have been developed since the
inception of computing. If behavioral research-
ers plan to incorporate technology into their
experiments, we recommend the use of object-
oriented programming languages. Object-
oriented languages are programming languages
that are organized around objects (e.g., stimuli
on a screen) rather than “actions” (e.g., when X
occurs, do Y), and data rather than logic. An
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
experiment can then be viewed as a logical
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
procedure that takes input data (e.g., a re-
sponse), processes it, and produces output data
(e.g., a consequence). Object-oriented lan-
guages (e.g., Swift, Objective-C) are also more
intuitively applicable to behavioral research be-
cause they allow the experimenter to visually
assess the screen interface in a storyboard like
format. Although recommending a specific pro-
gramming language for EAHB research is dif-
ficult because it is wholly dependent upon the
experiment and research question, a number of
investigators have written practical guides for
learning programming basics suitable for be-
havioral research (e.g., Cabello, Barnes-
Holmes, O’Hora, & Stewart, 2002; MacLin,
Dixon, & Jackson, 2007). However, for the
novice programmer, there exists a growing li-
brary of tools available to researchers (behav-
ioral scientists and otherwise) that provide an
introduction to using advanced technologies
without the need for a sophisticated background
in computer programming (e.g., ResearchKit,
ARKit, and CoreML offered by Apple; Tensor-
Flow offered by Google).
A second challenge is the necessary resources
required to complete EAHB studies that rely
considerably on technology for their execution.
EAHB requires sufficient laboratory space and a
method of continuous funds to support a hu-
man-operant laboratory. Laboratory space is
needed to ensure experiments are conducted in
a quiet, distraction-free environment. That is,
although the experiment might take place on a
mobile device such as a tablet computer, the
experiment will take place in a larger context
which should also be well controlled. Like all
behavioral research, extraneous influences
should be prevented from interacting with the
dependent variable of interest.
In terms of funding, incorporating technology
and purchasing equipment for the EAHB labo-
ratory might come with a financial burden for
299
some researchers. Unfortunately, many of the
necessary technologies needed to conduct a
sound EAHB experiment can be costly. For
example, the hardware required to develop the
experiment, the apparatus which executes the
experiment, and the software that programs
the experiment could exceed the laboratory’s
budget. In addition, the experimenter must con-
sider recurring costs associated with hardware
calibration, malfunctioning applications, exper-
imental “bugs,” and maintenance. Therefore,
upholding a EAHB laboratory of technological
sophistication might require internal or external
funding to deal with these costs. Although
EAHB research has benefitted greatly from
technological advances, we recommend exer-
cising caution when considering whether and
which technologies are needed to answer a
given research question.
Conclusion
The EAHB has numerous benefits to the
study of operant behavior including evaluating
interspecies generality, examining operants
unique to humans such as verbal behavior, and
determining the underlying processes influenc-
ing outcomes in applied practice. In line with
the third purpose of EAHB described above,
findings from human-laboratory studies may ul-
timately help inform behavioral interventions
for individuals with behavioral health needs
(Deitz, 1987; Lerman, 2003). Human-labora-
tory studies are important because the variables
affecting operant behavior that have direct prac-
tical relevance can be studied without putting
individuals at risk, which might occur in the
typical environment. Moreover, the histories
and schedules of reinforcement can be con-
trolled more easily than in the typical environ-
ment (Sweeney & Shahan, 2016; Wanchisen &
Tatham, 1991), which could result in more con-
fident assertions about experimental results.
As one might predict, the use of technology
could also be useful in behavioral interventions,
and we refer readers to Cohen and Rozenblat
(2015) for a review on technological advances
in applied behavior analysis. We echo the sen-
timents offered by those authors when consid-
ering the future of EAHB research. Namely,
relative to antiquated methods and procedures,
leveraging technologies to advance behavioral
science applications has many advantages in-
 300 SAINI AND ROANE
cluding (a) the ability to collect a greater pro-
portion of data, (b) measurement that is less
intrusive and more intuitive to use, (c) possible
increases in methodological efficiency, (d)
greater reliability in measures, (e) greater accu-
racy under typical environment conditions, and
(f) offers the scientist greater degrees of free-
dom when preparing the experimental condi-
tions. In addition, EAHB research also benefits
from technology when developing the response
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
apparatus, in the execution of the experiment, in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
moderating reinforcer delivery during the
course of the study, and most all other aspects
of the behavioral task. In this sense, technolog-
ical advances in EAHB have allowed for greater
similarity between nonhuman animal studies
and those of human-laboratory behavior.
Although we advocate for the use of technol-
ogy in EAHB so the behavioral scientist can be
afforded some of the luxuries available in the
nonhuman animal laboratory, doing could come
at a cost in some circumstances. For instance,
EAHB research that more closely approximates
the controlled environment of the operant
chamber may come at the sacrifice of being
even more distal from real-world events. Al-
though this issue is not as great of a concern in
the animal laboratory, in EAHB, one must strike
an appropriate balance between experimental
rigor (i.e., internal validity), external validity,
and the social importance of the research ques-
tion. However, it is possible that with techno-
logical innovations in computer science and re-
lated fields, external validity, social validity,
and a high degree of precision (i.e., experimen-
tal control) is certainly an attainable goal. The
real-world implications of EAHB research
(whether technologically sophisticated or other-
wise) must always remain the prime focus of a
given investigation.
It is highly likely that EAHB research will
continue to undergo refinement to keep pace
with advances in information and computer sci-
ence; however, it is unclear exactly what the
future holds. Computer technologies have en-
dured at least three major revolutions to date.
The first came in the early 1980s with micro-
computers which allowed for increased data
processing and organization. The second came
in the 1990s when the Internet allowed for
global communication and data sharing over
long distances. Third, the early 2000s marked
an era where mobile technology, smartphones,
and tablet computers allowed the computer to
accompany the individual. Attending to how
EAHB research has evolved over the decades,
one can easily find exemplars of how each of
these three technologies were, and continue to
be, incorporated into research. It is possible that
the fourth iteration of computing, including vir-
tual reality, robotics, and others (e.g., self-
driving cars), marks the next frontier of EAHB
research. Some researchers have already begun
demonstrating the unique application and ad-
vantages of such technological advancements
(e.g., Kazemi & Stedman-Falls, 2016; North &
North, 2016; Pritchard, 2010). To date, EAHB
and technological advancements have sustained
a steady relationship, and we believe that fur-
ther advances will continue to be leveraged to
improve EAHB research. In doing so, the study
of human-laboratory behavior will likely be
more precise, efficient, and allow for the inves-
tigation of experimental questions that were
previously elusive.
References
Alessandri, J., & Cançado, C. R. X. (2017). The
effects of instructions on the sensitivity of nega-
tively reinforced human behavior to extinction.
Behavioural Processes, 136, 50–53. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.01.009
Anderson, V. J., Buskist, W. F., & Miller, H. L.
(1981). The effects of autoshaping and automain-
tenance schedules on responding in children. The
Psychological Record, 31, 519–528. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/BF03394765
Baron, A., Perone, M., & Galizio, M. (1991). Ana-
lyzing the reinforcement process at the human
level: Can application and behavioristic interpre-
tation replace laboratory research? The Behavior
Analyst, 14, 95–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF03392557
Baum, M. (1965). An automated apparatus for the
avoidance training of rats. Psychological Reports,
16, 1205–1211. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1965
.16.3c.1205
Begum, M., Serna, R. W., & Yanco, H. A. (2016).
Are robots ready to deliver autism interventions? a
comprehensive review. International Journal of
Social Robotics, 8, 157–181. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s12369-016-0346-y
Bernstein, D. J. (1988). Laboratory lore and research
practices in the experimental analysis of human
behavior: Designing session logistics-how long,
how often, how many? The Behavior Analyst, 11,
51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392455
 TECH IN EAHB
Bigelow, G. E., Emurian, H. H., & Brady, J. V.
(1975). A programmed environment for the exper-
imental analysis of individual and small group
behavior. In C. G. Miles (Ed.), Experimentation in
controlled environments and its implications for
economic behavior and social policy-making (pp.
133–144). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Addiction
Research Foundation.
Bizo, L. A., Remington, B., D’Souza, L. S., Heigh-
way, S. K., & Baston, C. (2002). Human vari-
able ratio performance. Learning and Motiva-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tion, 33, 411– 432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
S0023-9690(02)00010-3
Bolívar, H. A., Cox, D. J., Barlow, M. A., & Dallery,
J. (2017). Evaluating resurgence procedures in a
human operant laboratory. Behavioural Processes,
140, 150–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc
.2017.05.004
Boyle, M. A., Samaha, A. L., Slocum, T. A., Hoff-
mann, A. N., & Bloom, S. E. (2016). A human-
operant investigation of preceding-and following-
schedule behavioral contrast. The Psychological
Record, 66, 381–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s40732-016-0179-y
Branch, M. N. (1991). Behavioral Pharmacology. In
I. H. Iversen & K. A. Lattal (Eds.), Experimental
analysis of behavior (pp. 21–77). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-444-81251-3.50009-6
Bullock, C. E., Fisher, W. W., & Hagopian, L. P.
(2017). Description and validation of a computer-
ized behavioral data program: “BDataPro.” The
Behavior Analyst, 40, 275–285.
Buskist, W. F., & Miller, H. L., Jr. (1982). The
analysis of human operant behavior: A brief cen-
sus of the literature: 1958 –1981. The Behavior
Analyst, 5, 137–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF03392382
Cabello, F., Barnes-Holmes, D., O’Hora, D., & Stew-
art, I. (2002). Using visual basic in the experimen-
tal analysis of human behavior: A brief introduc-
tion. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior
Bulletin, 20, 18–21.
Case, D. A., Ploog, B. O., & Fantino, E. (1990).
Observing behavior in a computer game. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 185–
199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1990.54-185
Cohen, E., & Rozenblat, R. (2015). Applied, behav-
ioral, analytic and . . . technological: A current
literature review on the use of technologies in
behavior analysis. European Journal of Behavior
Analysis, 16, 178–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15021149.2015.1085720
Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Crucial issues in the applied
analysis of verbal behavior: Reflections on crucial
conversations: Tools for talking when the stakes
are high. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 26, 133–
145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03393087
301
Deitz, S. M. (1987). On the relation between the
experimental analysis of human behavior and ap-
plied behavior analysis. The Psychological Re-
cord, 37, 29–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF03395869
Dennison, L., Morrison, L., Conway, G., & Yard-
ley, L. (2013). Opportunities and challenges for
smartphone applications in supporting health be-
havior change: Qualitative study. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 15, e86. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2196/jmir.2583
Doolan, K. E., & Bizo, L. A. (2013). Reinforced
behavioral variability in humans. The Psychologi-
cal Record, 63, 725–734. http://dx.doi.org/10
.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.4.002
Dube, W. V., Ahearn, W. H., Lionello-Denolf, K., &
McIlvane, W. J. (2009). Behavioral momentum:
Translational research in intellectual and develop-
mental disabilities. The Behavior Analyst Today,
10, 238–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0100668
Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Mazzitelli, K., &
McNamara, B. (2003). Reinforcer rate effects and
behavioral momentum in individuals with devel-
opmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental
Retardation, 108, 134–143. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1352/0895-8017(2003)108⬍0134:RREABM⬎2
.0.CO;2
Dube, W. V., Thompson, B., Silveira, M. V., &
Nevin, J. A. (2017). The role of contingencies and
stimuli in a human laboratory model of treatment
of problem behavior. The Psychological Record,
67, 463– 471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40732-
017-0248-x
Dymond, S., & Critchfield, T. S. (2001). Neither dark
age nor renaissance: Research and authorship
trends in the experimental analysis of human be-
havior (1980 –1999). The Behavior Analyst, 24,
241–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392034
Dymond, S., & Critchfield, T. S. (2002). A legacy of
growth: Human operant research in The Psycho-
logical Record, 1980 –1999. The Psychological
Record, 52, 99–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF03395417
Findley, J. D. (1966). Programmed environments for
the experimental analysis of human behavior. In
W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of
research and application (pp. 827– 848). New
York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Galizio, M., & Buskist, W. (1988). Laboratory lore
and research practices in the experimental analysis
of human behavior: Selecting reinforcers and ar-
ranging contingencies. The Behavior Analyst, 11,
65– 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392457
Garcia-Palacios, A., Hoffman, H., Carlin, A., Fur-
ness, T. A., III, & Botella, C. (2002). Virtual
reality in the treatment of spider phobia: A con-
trolled study. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
 302 SAINI AND ROANE
40, 983–993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-
7967(01)00068-7
Glover, A. C., Roane, H. S., Kadey, H. J., & Grow,
L. L. (2008). Preference for reinforcers under pro-
gressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: A comparison
of single and concurrent arrangements. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 163–176. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-163
Goodwin, M. S., Velicer, W. F., & Intille, S. S.
(2008). Telemetric monitoring in the behavior sci-
ences. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 328–341.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.328
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hake, D. F. (1982). The basic-applied continuum and
the possible evolution of human operant social and
verbal research. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 21–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03393137
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003).
Functional analysis of problem behavior: A re-
view. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36,
147–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-
147
Hefferline, R. F., & Keenan, B. (1961). Amplitude-
induction gradient of a small human operant in an
escape-avoidance situation. Journal of the Exper-
imental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 41– 43. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-41
Hoffmann, A. N., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., &
Boyle, M. A. (2017). Preference and reinforcer
efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A compari-
son of item type and duration of access. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 222–237. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/jaba.383
Hutchinson, R. R., & Azrin, N. H. (1961). Condi-
tioning of mental-hospital patients to fixed-ratio
schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Exper-
imental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 87–95. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-87
Hyten, C., & Reilly, M. P. (1992). The renaissance of
the experimental analysis of human behavior. The
Behavior Analyst, 15, 109–114. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF03392593
Jackson, J., & Dixon, M. R. (2007). A mobile com-
puting solution for collecting functional analysis
data on a Pocket PC. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 40, 359–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.2007.46-06
Johnson, K. A., Vladescu, J. C., Kodak, T., &
Sidener, T. M. (2017). An assessment of differen-
tial reinforcement procedures for learners with au-
tism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Behav-
ior Analysis, 50, 290–303. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/jaba.372
Kangas, B. D., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2009). On
reinforcing human behavior in the laboratory: A
brief review and some recommendations. Experi-
mental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 27,
21–26.
Kazemi, E., & Stedman-Falls, L. M. (2016). Can
humanoid robots serve as patient simulators in
behavior analytic research and practice? Behavior
Analysis: Research and Practice, 16, 135–146.
Kelley, M. E., Liddon, C. J., Ribeiro, A., Greif, A. E.,
& Podlesnik, C. A. (2015). Basic and translational
evaluation of renewal of operant responding. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 390– 401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jaba.209
Kestner, K. M., & Peterson, S. M. (2017). A review
of resurgence literature with human participants.
Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 17,
1–17.
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: To-
wards an experiential gaming model. The Internet
and Higher Education, 8, 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001
Kuroda, T., Cançado, C. R., & Podlesnik, C. A.
(2016). Resistance to change and resurgence in
humans engaging in a computer task. Behavioural
Processes, 125, 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.beproc.2016.01.010
Lattal, K. A., & Perone, M. (Eds.). (1998). The
Experimental Analysis of Human Operant Behav-
ior. Handbook of research methods in human op-
erant behavior: Applied clinical psychology. Bos-
ton, MA: Springer.
Lerman, D. C. (2003). From the laboratory to com-
munity application: Translational research in be-
havior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-
ysis, 36, 415– 419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba
.2003.36-415
Lionello-DeNolf, K. M., & McIlvane, W. J. (2003).
Rebirth of the Shriver automated teaching labora-
tory. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior
Bulletin, 21, 12–17.
Luiselli, J. K., & Fischer, A. J. (2016). Computer-
assisted and web-based innovations in psychology,
special education, and health. London, UK:
Elsevier.
Mace, F. C., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Transla-
tional research in behavior analysis: Historical tra-
ditions and imperative for the future. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 293–312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2010.93-293
MacLin, O. H., Dixon, M. R., & Jackson, J. W.
(2007). Visual Basic 2005 for psychologists. New
York, NY: Context Press.
Navarick, D. J. (1982). Negative reinforcement and choice
in humans. Learning and Motivation, 13, 361–377.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(82)90015-7
Noldus, L. P. (1991). The Observer: A software
system for collection and analysis of observational
data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 23, 415– 429. http://dx.doi.org/10
.3758/BF03203406
Noldus, L. P., Trienes, R. J., Hendriksen, A. H.,
Jansen, H., & Jansen, R. G. (2000). The Observer
 TECH IN EAHB
Video-Pro: New software for the collection, man-
agement, and presentation of time-structured data
from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior
Research Methods, 32, 197–206.
North, M. M., & North, S. M. (2016). Virtual reality
therapy. In J. K. Luiselli & A. J. Fischer (Eds.),
Computer-assisted and web-based innovations in
psychology, special education, and health (pp.
141–156). London, UK: Elsevier. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802075-3.00006-1
Parsons, T. D., & Rizzo, A. A. (2008). Affective
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
outcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
anxiety and specific phobias: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 39, 250–261. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.jbtep.2007.07.007
Pritchard, D., Hoerger, M., & Mace, F. C. (2014).
Treatment relapse and behavioral momentum the-
ory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47,
814– 833. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jaba.163
Pritchard, J. (2010). Virtual rewards for driving
green. The Behavior Analyst, 33, 185–187. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392216
Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Sub-
jective probability and delay. Journal of the Ex-
perimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 233–244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.55-233
Raghav, K., Van Wijk, A. J., Abdullah, F., Islam,
M. N., Bernatchez, M., & De Jongh, A. (2016).
Efficacy of virtual reality exposure therapy for
treatment of dental phobia: A randomized control
trial. BMC Oral Health, 16, 25. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1186/s12903-016-0186-z
Rasmussen, E. B., & Newland, M. C. (2008). Asym-
metry of reinforcement and punishment in human
choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 89, 157–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/
jeab.2008.89-157
Roane, H. S., Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M.
(2001). Assessing reinforcers under progressive
schedule requirements. Journal of Applied Behav-
ior Analysis, 34, 145–166. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1901/jaba.2001.34-145
Romano, L. M., & St. Peter, C. C. (2017). Omission
training results in more resurgence than alternative
reinforcement. The Psychological Record, 67,
315–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-
0214-z
Ronimus, M., Kujala, J., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen,
H. (2014). Children’s engagement during digital
game-based learning of reading: The effects of
time, rewards, and challenge. Computers & Edu-
cation, 71, 237–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.compedu.2013.10.008
Saini, V., & Fisher, W. W. (2016). Evaluating the
effects of discriminability on behavioral persis-
tence during and following time-based reinforce-
ment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-
303
havior, 106, 195–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
jeab.225
Sasaki, J. E., & da Silva, K. S., da Costa, B. C. G., &
John, D. (2016). Measurement of physical activity
using accelerometers. In J. K. Luiselli & A. J.
Fischer (Eds.), Computer-assisted and web-based
innovations in psychology, special education, and
health (pp. 33–56). London, UK: Elsevier.
Sidener, T. M., Shabani, D. B., & Carr, J. E. (2004).
A review of the Behavioral Evaluation Strategy
and Taxonomy (BEST) software application. Be-
havioral Interventions, 19, 275–285. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/bin.159
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior.
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Sweeney, M. M., Moore, K., Shahan, T. A., Ahearn,
W. H., Dube, W. V., & Nevin, J. A. (2014). Mod-
eling the effects of sensory reinforcers on behav-
ioral persistence with alternative reinforcement.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
102, 252–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jeab.103
Sweeney, M. M., & Shahan, T. A. (2016). Resur-
gence of target responding does not exceed in-
creases in inactive responding in a forced-choice
alternative reinforcement procedure in humans.
Behavioural Processes, 124, 80–92. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.12.007
Tapp, J., Ticha, R., Kryzer, E., Gustafson, M., Gun-
nar, M. R., & Symons, F. J. (2006). Comparing
observational software with paper and pencil for
time-sampled data: A field test of Interval Manager
(INTMAN). Behavior Research Methods, 38,
165–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03192763
Tarr, M. J., & Warren, W. H. (2002). Virtual reality
in behavioral neuroscience and beyond. Nature
Neuroscience, 5, 1089–1092. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1038/nn948
Tennyson, M. F., Kuester, D. A., Casteel, J., &
Nikolopoulos, C. (2016). Accessible robots for
improving social skills of individuals with autism.
Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Comput-
ing Research, 6, 267–277. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1515/jaiscr-2016-0020
Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I., &
Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in
education and young children. Journal of Educa-
tional Technology & Society, 19, 148–163.
Trosclair-Lasserre, N. M., Lerman, D. C., Call, N. A.,
Addison, L. R., & Kodak, T. (2008). Reinforce-
ment magnitude: An evaluation of preference and
reinforcer efficacy. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 41, 203–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.2008.41-203
Wanchisen, B. A., & Tatham, T. A. (1991). Behav-
ioral history: A promising challenge in explaining
and controlling human operant behavior. The Be-
 304 SAINI AND ROANE
havior Analyst, 14, 139–144. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/BF03392564
Watkins, M. W., & Pacheco, M. (2000). Interob-
server agreement in behavioral research: Impor-
tance and calculation. Journal of Behavioral Edu-
cation, 10, 205–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1012295615144
Weiner, H. (1962). Some effects of response cost
upon human operant behavior. Journal of the Ex-
perimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 201–208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1962.5-201
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Whalen, C., Liden, L., Ingersoll, B., Dallaire, E., &
Liden, S. (2006). Behavioral improvements asso-
ciated with computer-assisted instruction for chil-
dren with developmental disabilities. The Journal
of Speech and Language Pathology—Applied Be-
havior Analysis, 1, 11–26. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/h0100182
Received December 30, 2016
Revision received December 14, 2017
Accepted January 4, 2018 䡲