{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021352313167259787, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004270462633451958, 'mean_word_length': 5.248888888888889, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of stimulus variation on the reinforcing capability of nonpreferred stimuli.

We examined the effects of stimulus (reinforcer) variation in several different contexts. In Study 1, we identified high-quality (HQ) and low-quality (LQ) stimuli based on results of a paired-stimulus assessment and examined their effects when available under concurrent-reinforcement schedules for 8 participants. No participants showed preference for the LQ stimuli when compared singly or in a varied arrangement to the HQ stimulus. In Study 2, we identified nonpreferred (NP) stimuli based on results of a single-stimulus assessment and examined their effects when available under single-reinforcement schedules for 3 participants. Results of Study 2 were mixed. One participant's data indicated that the varied presentation of NP stimuli produced a modest improvement in performance over that observed when the stimuli were presented singly. By contrast, a second participant's data showed no facilitative effect for the varied delivery of NP stimuli and that the inclusion of an HQ stimulus in the varied arrangement obscured the reinforcing effects of the HQ stimulus. The 3rd participant's data showed no effect for the varied delivery of NP stimuli but an apparent facilitative effect when an HQ stimulus was included in the varied arrangement, which was attributable solely to the presence of the HQ stimulus.