A Transfer of Functions Through Derived Arbitrary and Nonarbitrary Stimulus Relations

Abstract

During Experiments 1 and 2, subjects were trained in a series of related conditional discriminations in a matching-to-sample format (A1-B1, A1-C1 and A2-B2, A2-C2). A low-rate performance was then explicitly trained in the presence of B1, and a high-rate performance was explicitly trained in the presence of B2. The two types of schedule performance transferred to the C stimuli for all subjects in both experiments, in the absence of explicit reinforcement through equivalence (i.e., C1 = low rate and C2 = high rate). In Experiment 2, it was also shown that these discriminative functions transferred from the C1-C2 stimuli to two novel stimuli that were physically similar to the C stimuli (SC1 and SC2, respectively). For both these experiments, subjects demonstrated the predicted equivalence responding during matching-to-sample equivalence tests. In Experiments 3 and 4, the conditional discrimination training from the first two experiments was modified in that two further conditional discrimination tasks were trained (C1-D1 and C2-D2). However, for these tasks the D stimuli served only as positive comparisons, and ND1 and ND2 stimuli served as negative comparisons (i.e., C1 x ND1 and C2 x ND2). Subsequent to training, the negatively related stimuli (ND1 and ND2) did not become discriminative for the schedule performances explicitly trained in the presence of B1 and B2, respectively. Instead, the ND1 stimulus became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B2, and ND2 became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B1. All subjects from Experiment 4 showed that the novel stimulus SND1, which was physically similar to ND1, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND1. Similarly, SND2, which was physically similar to ND2, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND2. Subjects from both Experiments 3 and 4 also produced equivalence responding on matching-to-sample equivalence tests that corresponded perfectly to the derived performances shown on the transfer of discriminative control tests.

Instructions, Stimulus Equivalence, and Stimulus Sorting: Effects of Sequential Testing Arrangements and a Default Option

“…For example, when given all stimuli, a subject might first sort all class-1 stimuli in one group and then all class-2 stimuli in another group. It has been shown that stimulus equivalence is frequently, but not always, associated with functional equivalence, and vice versa (Barnes & Keenan, 1993;de Rose, Mcllvane, Dube, Galpin, & Stoddard, 1988;Dube, McDonald, & Mcllvane, 1990;Dymond & Barnes, 1994;Sidman, Wynne, Maguire, & Barnes, 1989;Smeets, Barnes, & Roche, 1997). How does sorting compare with functional equivalence?…”

Multiple Functions in Equivalence Classes

“…Research into function transfer in stimulus equivalence classes typically has involved training a relatively simple function to one member of a stimulus equivalence class (e.g., Barnes & Keenan, 1993). While there are good reasons for adopting this strategy, the findings reported here indicate that perhaps there have been hidden limitations to date in either the kinds of questions that can be asked or in the phenomena that can be uncovered.…”

“…Once a single operant function has been explicitly trained to a member of an equivalence class, subsequent tests usually demonstrate that this function is recorded in the presence of other members of that particular class (Barnes & Keenan, 1993;Lazar & Kotlarchyk, 1986;Wulfert & Hayes, 1988;Kohlenberg, Hayes & Hayes, 1991;Dougher, Auguston, Markham, Greenway & Wulfert, 1994). Because this finding has been so consistent it has not been necessary to inquire about the stability of trained functions.…”

“…The basic finding is that other stimuli in the equivalence class come to control the same response without direct training. examples of functions that have been studied include rate of responding (Barnes & Keenan, 1993), discriminative stimulus control (Lazar & Kotlarchyk, 1986), instructional control (McGuigan & Keenan, 2002), conditional discriminative control (Wulfert & Hayes, 1988), contextual control (Kohlenberg, Hayes, & Hayes, 1991), and eliciting functions (Dougher, Auguston, Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994).…”

A Transformation of Functions in Accordance with the Nonarbitrary Relational Properties of Sexual Stimuli

“…To date, a wide variety of stimulus function transformations has been demonstrated in accordance with equivalence relations (e.g., Barnes & Keenan, 1993;Dougher, Augustson, Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994;Dougher, Perkins, Greenway, Koons, & Chiasson, 2002;Dymond & Barnes, 1995;Rehfeldt & Hayes, 1998;Smeets & Barnes-Holmes, 2003; see Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000, for a review) and derived relations other than equivalence, such as Sameness, Opposition, and Difference (Dymond & Barnes, 1996;Steele & Hayes, 1991;Roche & Barnes, 1996Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004), More than and Less than (Dymond & Barnes, 1995;O'Hora, Roche, Barnes-Holmes, & Smeets, 2002;Whelan, Barnes-Holmes, & Dymond, 2006), and Before and After (Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Dymond, & O'Hora, 2001; O'Hora, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, & Smeets, 2004). For example, Roche and Barnes (1997) exposed participants to a relational pretraining procedure to establish contextual functions of Same and Opposite for two arbitrary stimuli.…”