Membership of Defined Responses in Stimulus Classes (original) (raw)
Related papers
Two Discriminative Functions of Meaningful Stimuli That Enhance Equivalence Class Formation
The Psychological Record, 2014
Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Association of Behavior Analysis International. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com".
The relation between stimulus function and equivalence class formation
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2004
Fifty participants were exposed to a simple discrimination-training procedure during which six Sϩ functions were established for six arbitrary stimuli, and SϪ functions were established for a further six stimuli. Following this training, each participant was exposed to one of five conditions. In the Sϩ condition, participants were exposed to a stimulus equivalence training and testing procedure using only the six Sϩ stimuli as samples and comparisons. In the Sϩ/SϪ condition, participants were exposed to the same training and testing sequence as in the Sϩ condition, the difference being that three Sϩ and three SϪ stimuli were used as sample and comparison stimuli, with each set of three corresponding to the trained equivalence relations. In the Sϩ/SϪ mixed condition, the Sϩ and SϪ stimuli were assigned to their roles as samples and comparisons in a quasi-random order. In the SϪ condition, all six SϪ stimuli were used. The no-function condition served as a control condition and employed stimuli for which no stimulus-control functions had been established. The results showed that, on average, participants required more testing trials to form equivalence relations when the stimuli involved were functionally similar rather than functionally different. Moreover, participants required more test trials to form equivalence relations when novel arbitrary stimuli, rather than functionally distinct stimuli, were used as samples and comparisons. The speed of acquisition of stimulus equivalence was also related to the number of functionally similar stimuli established before training. These findings indicate a variety of ways in which the emergence of equivalence relations is affected by the functional classes in which the relevant stimuli participate.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2015
Equivalence class formation by college students was influenced through the prior acquisition of conditional discriminative functions by one of the abstract stimuli (C) in the to-be-formed classes. Participants in the GR-0, GR-1, and GR-5 groups attempted to form classes under the simultaneous protocol, after mastering 0, 1, or 5 conditional relations between C and other abstract stimuli (V, W, X, Y, Z) that were not included in the to-be-formed classes (ABCDE). Participants in the GR-many group attempted to form classes that contained four abstract stimuli and one meaningful picture as the C stimulus. In the GR-0, GR-1, GR-5, and GR-many groups, classes were formed by 17, 25, 58, and 67% of participants, respectively. Thus, likelihood of class formation was enhanced by the prior formation of five C-based conditional relations (the GR-5 vs. GR-0 condition), or the inclusion of a meaningful stimulus as a class member (the GR-many vs. GR-0 condition). The GR-5 and GR-many conditions pr...
Topography of responses in CondiTional disCriminaTion influenCes formaTion of equivalenCe Classes
The Psychological Record, 2008
The effects of response topography on stimulus class formation were studied in two experiments. In Experiment 1, 32 college students were assigned to 2 response topographies and 2 stimulus sets, in a 2 × 2 design. Students selected stimuli by either moving a mouse to place an arrow-shaped cursor on the stimulus or pressing a key corresponding to stimulus location. After they learned conditional discriminations EF, DE, CD, BC, and AB and a simple simultaneous discrimination, tests for class formation were conducted. The number of students showing class formation was larger for the group using the mouse. Stimulus set had no effect. Experiment 2 included probes for controlling relations in the baseline and showed that the response topography using the mouse increases the probability of sample-S+ relations, thus increasing the probability of class formation.
Equivalence class formation by college students was influenced through the prior acquisition of conditional discriminative functions by one of the abstract stimuli (C) in the to-be-formed classes. Participants in the GR-0, GR-1, and GR-5 groups attempted to form classes under the simultaneous protocol, after mastering 0, 1, or 5 conditional relations between C and other abstract stimuli (V, W, X, Y, Z) that were not included in the to-be-formed classes (ABCDE). Participants in the GR-many group attempted to form classes that contained four abstract stimuli and one meaningful picture as the C stimulus. In the GR-0, GR-1, GR-5, and GR-many groups, classes were formed by 17, 25, 58, and 67% of participants, respectively. Thus, likelihood of class formation was enhanced by the prior formation of five C-based conditional relations (the GR-5 vs. GR-0 condition), or the inclusion of a meaningful stimulus as a class member (the GR-many vs. GR-0 condition). The GR-5 and GR-many conditions produced very similar yields, indicating that class formation was enhanced to a similar degree by including a meaningful stimulus or an abstract stimulus that had become a member of five conditional relations prior to equivalence class formation. Finally, the low and high yields produced by the GR-1 and GR-5 conditions showed that the class enhancement effect of the GR-5 condition was due to the number of conditional relations established during preliminary training and not to the sheer amount of reinforcement provided while learning these conditional relations. Class enhancement produced by meaningful stimuli, then, can be attributed to their acquired conditional discriminative functions as well as their discriminative, connotative, and denotative properties.
The Psychological Record, 2016
Previous experiments have investigated the function of using pictures or meaningful stimuli on equivalence class formation. For example, when attempting to form three 5-member classes (A→B→C→D→E), findings have shown that pictures used as C stimuli have increased the probability of producing equivalence class formation relative to when all stimuli in the stimulus set are abstract. The present experiment extends the literature by examining whether the formation of equivalence classes varies as a function of having three (C1, C2, and C3), two (C1 and C2), or one (C1) stimulus as a picture in a set of abstract stimuli. Hence, 60 participants were randomly assigned to 4 different experimental groups: 0-picture group or abstract group (ABS), 1-picture group (1PIC), 2-pictures group (2PIC), and 3-pictures group (3PIC). In addition, we had a reference group with abstract shapes only. The findings from the present experiment showed that 2 of 15 participants in the ABS formed classes. Also, two of 15 participants in the 1PIC formed classes, 8 of 15 participants in the 2PIC formed equivalence classes, and 12 of 15 members in the 3PIC formed classes. The statistical analysis supported the notion that equivalence class formation is a function of the number of pictures in a potential equivalence class.
Stimulus class formation and stimulus-reinforcer relations
Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1989
This study examined stimulus class membership established via stimulus-reinforcer relations. Mentally retarded subjects learned conditional discriminations with four two-member sets of visual stimuli (A, B, C, and D). On arbitrary-matching trials, they selected comparison stimuli Bi and B2 conditionally upon samples Al and A2, respectively, and Cl and C2 conditionally upon Bi and B2, respectively. On identity-matching trials, they selected all stimuli as comparisons conditionally upon identical stimuli as samples. Throughout training, correct selections of Al, BI, Cl, and Dl were followed by one reinforcer, RI, and those of A2, B2, C2, and D2 were followed by another, R2. Subsequent tests documented the formation of two four-member stimulus classes, Al-Bl-Cl-Dl and A2-B2-C2-D2. The class membership of the A, B, and C stimuli could have been based on equivalence relations that resulted from the arbitrary-matching training. Dl and D2 had never appeared on arbitrary-matching trials, however. Their class membership must have been based on relations with Rl and R2, respectively. Results thus confirm a previous finding that stimulus classes can be expanded via stimulus-reinforcer relations. They also define more precisely the potential nature of those classes and the conditions under which class membership can be established.
Psychological Record, 2010
Previous studies comparing groups of subjects have indicated differential probabilities of stimulus equivalence outcome as a function of training structures. One-to-Many (OTM) and Many-to-One (MTO) training structures seem to produce positive outcomes on tests for stimulus equivalence more often than a Linear Series (LS) training structure does. One of the predictions from the discrimination analysis of R. R. is that the differences in outcome between training structures should increase with number of class members. The purpose of the present experiment was to replicate and expand earlier findings on the effect of training structures and the stimulus equivalence outcome in a single-subject design. We wanted to compare the stimulus equivalence outcome in three 3-member classes to the outcome in three 4-member classes. In addition, we included all trial types in the tests and also changed the density of feedback before testing. The results from the current study replicated some earlier findings and showed that OTM gave a slightly better outcome on the stimulus equivalence test than MTO, and that both gave better outcome than LS. Thus, we did not find that MTO was superior to OTM with increasing number of members in each class. Reaction time data also replicated earlier findings that showed an increase from baseline to testing, and a more pronounced increase in reaction time on equivalence than symmetry trials. Differential procedural issues and some contingencies that could be important in understanding the results are discussed.
Equivalence Class Formation is Influenced by Stimulus Contingency
The Psychological Record, 2016
Three groups of subjects received training in stimulus equivalence classes with a respondent-type training procedure. Stimulus contingency was positive for the first group, zero for the second, and negative for the third. Afterwards, all participants were tested with a matching-to-sample task for four baseline relations (A1-B1, A2-B2, C1-B1, and C2-B2), four symmetry relations (B1-A1, B2-A2, B1-C1, and C2-B2), and four combined symmetry and transitivity relations (A1-C1, A2-C2, C1-A1, and C2-A2). After this, they were retrained and retested twice. Explicit reinforcement was not programmed during the training or testing phases. The number of subjects who learned the baseline relations and showed the emergence of derived relations was higher in the positive contingency group than in the zero or negative contingency groups, although in all cases at least one retraining phase was required in order to reach the criteria. This finding contributes to the literature suggesting that stimulus pairing is the fundamental variable underlying emergent stimulus functions.