Emergência De Classes De Equivalência Após Separação E Recombinação Dos Estímulos Compostos Utilizados No Treino

Abstract

ResumoDois estudos ensinaram discriminações de estímulos compostos e avaliaram a emergência de classes de equivalência com dois procedimentos diferentes de teste. Em ambos os estudos, estudantes universitários foram submetidos a treino com discriminações simples simultâneas (DSS) e a emergência de classes de equivalência foi testada utilizando-se tanto um procedimento de DSS quanto de pareamento ao modelo. Os estudos diferiram quanto ao número de classes treinadas/ testadas. No Estudo 1, quatro de nove participantes demonstraram a emergência de relações transitivas e de equivalência. No Estudo 2, os cinco participantes demonstraram a emergência de todas as relações testadas. Não houve diferença nos resultados em função do tipo de teste. Os resultados fornecem suporte empírico para a noção de que elementos de um estímulo composto podem ser separados e recombinados sem que haja ruptura no controle discriminativo.Palavras-chave: Discriminações simples simultâneas, estímulos compostos, relações arbitrárias emergentes, estudantes universitários. AbstRActTwo studies taught college students to discriminate compound stimuli and assessed the emergence of equivalence classes using two different test procedures. In both studies, compound stimuli were presented in simple simultaneous discrimination (SSD) training and the emergence of equivalence classes was tested using both SSD and matching so sample procedures. The studies differed in the number of classes trained/tested. In Experiment 1, four out of nine participants showed the emergence of transitive and equivalence relations. In Experiment 2, all five participants showed the emergence of all relations tested. There was no difference in the results as a function of test type. The results provide empirical support for the notion that elements of a compound stimulus can be separated and recombined without disruption in discriminative control.

Stimulus Arrangement in Simple Discriminative Training with Compound and Emergence of Stimulus Equivalence Classes

“…The formation of equivalence classes of stimuli was also demonstrated in studies that used compound stimuli in training sessions of simple simultaneous discriminations (SSD; e.g., Moreira & Hanna, 2012;Smeets, BarnesHolmes, & Cullinan, 2000) and simple successive discriminations (SSuD; e.g., Debert, Huziwara, Faggiani, de Mathis, & McIlvane, 2009;Debert, Matos, & McIlvane, 2007). In both cases, adult participants demonstrated the emergence of symmetry, transitivity, and symmetry of transitivity.…”

“…The studies conducted by Moreira and Hanna (2012) demonstrated the emergence of arbitrary conditional relations using two different testing procedures for the same participants and relations, but it was not possible to precisely identify the relevant variable that would explain the variability observed in Study 1. The insertion of a third set of stimuli in Study 2 allowed the use of a larger number of S-s, but also increased, compared to Study 1, the number of programmed training trials from 152 to 234.…”

“…For example, if a MTS procedure was used during training, the emergence of new relations during testing will also use this procedure. Moreira and Hanna (2012) appear to be the fi rst researchers to use a different procedure for testing and training. The authors carried out two studies where participants went through SSD training with compound stimuli.…”

“…According to Moreira and Hanna (2012), the variability in the results regarding the emergence of transitivity and symmetry of transitivity in Study 1, between and within-subjects, may have occurred, at least in part, due to the reduced number of S-(only two). The repetition of the same two S-in all training trials increases the chances of establishing control by rejection of S-s or other spurious control.…”

“…In Study 2 by Moreira and Hanna (2012), which used the same training and testing structure as Study 1, fi ve undergraduate students were submitted to training of three AB discriminations and three BC discriminations (compared to two AB discriminations and two BC discriminations in Study 1). Pairs of compound stimuli presented as S-s in each trial varied between training and testing trials due to a third set of stimuli being inserted, which increased the possible S-combinations from two to six (A1B2, A1B3, A2B1, A2B3, A3B1 and A3B2, for AB training and B1C2, B1C3, B2C1, B2C3, B2C1 and B3C2 for BC training).…”