Emergent Stimulus Relations Depend on Stimulus Correlation and Not on Reinforcement Contingencies

Minster, Sara Tepaeru; Elliffe, Douglas; Muthukumaraswamy, Suresh

doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.95-327

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With regard to learning mechanisms, stimulus equivalence may result initially from associative processes, because the stimuli that become members of a class have been presented together (e.g., in the case of symmetry) or with a third stimulus (e.g., A1 is presented with B1 and B1 with C1, which results in the A1-C1 relation) (see arguments on this theoretical account by Minster, Elliffe, & Muthukumaraswamy, 2011;Tonneau, 2001;Tonneau, Arreola, & Martínez, 2006;Tonneau & González, 2004). However, results from the present study cannot be explained solely through stimulus associations because the X and Y stimuli were not paired or presented with a common stimulus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimuli with identical contextual functions taught independently become functionally equivalent

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A novel learning process that does not require stimulus associations was explored in humans. The hypothesis was that two contextual stimuli taught in separate settings, with different stimuli, become equivalent if they accomplish identical functions with regard to the relations between the stimuli presented with them. The procedure consisted of : (a) first teaching an AB conditional discrimination (e.g., match A1 to B1 and A2 to B2) and then teaching a second-order XAB conditional discrimination in which X1 indicated performing the same selections as in AB and X2 indicated selecting the alternative comparison (e.g., match A1 to B2 and A2 to B1); (b) repeating the procedure with completely new stimuli, YHJ, in which the functions of the Y stimuli were identical to those of X; and (c) conducting a final probe under extinction to verify the equivalence between the X and the Y stimuli. Three experiments were conducted to explore the process and to rule out the influence of alternative variables. Out of these, 13 of the 14 participants matched the stimuli to the same contextual functions. Thus, the hypothesis was verified. These results demonstrate that humans are able to match stimuli according to their functions in relation to other stimuli. This process may be very much involved in language; for example, understanding that words or clauses that have been learned in separate contexts and with separate stimuli share the same meaning. Understanding this process may help to identify learning or developmental problems, such as those shown by persons with autism, and help to treat them.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimuli with identical contextual functions taught independently become functionally equivalent

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the findings of the current study support the results of other research studies (e.g., Imam, 2006) and suggest that a more equalized presentation of the trained conditional relations would help reduce the nodal number effects. An even number of presentations of the trained conditional relations, however, brings about overtraining (e.g., Driskell, Willis, & Copper, 1992;Minister, Elliffe, & Muthukumaraswamy, 2011) and raises questions, therefore, about whether such an approach camouflages the real purpose of the study-identifying the differences in stimulus equivalence outcome as a function of the component simple discriminations that are embedded within the three different training structures. Nonetheless, by attempting to equalize the number of training trials per conditional relation in the current study, in an effort to replicate the Imam (2006) study, could it have been the case that we actually reduced the nodal number effects due to overtraining?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training Structures and the Formation of Equivalence Classes

Arntzen

Hansen

2011

European Journal of Behavior Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In behavior analysis, the most common way to train the necessary prerequisites for testing for derived relations is to use conditional discrimination procedures. These procedures can produce emergent relations, like stimulus equivalence. Stimulus equivalence is defined as responding in accordance with reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity (Sidman, 1994; Sidman & Tailby, 1982). Three different training structures are typically used when establishing conditional relations: many-to-one (MTO), one-to-many (OTM), and linear series (LS) (e.g., K. J. Saunders, Saunders, Williams, & Spradlin, 1993). In an MTO training structure, many sample stimuli are trained to one comparison stimulus, while in OTM, one sample stimulus is trained to many comparisons. In an LS training structure, the nodal stimulus shift in one conditional relation from functioning as a comparison to a sample in the next condtional relation (Fields & Verhave, 1987). Even if the present experiment is concerned with basic research questions, knowledge about the differential effectiveness is important for teaching programs. The literature is not consistent with respect to the equivalence outcome of the different training structures. However, when using a simultaneous training and testing protocol

show abstract

“…However, Boelens (2002) provided a robust rebuttal of these arguments. In addition, more recently, Minster et al (2011), using a three-choice design, provided class-unique incorrect comparison stimuli during testing and found no evidence of control by exclusion in tests for equivalence (instead of reliably avoiding these stimuli, the majority of participants chose them). Nevertheless, analyses of response trajectories such as those in the present study might provide novel approaches to contrasting S+ and S− control in future research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies testing the relative efficacy of such differing accounts in accounting for new empirical data (e.g., Minster, Elliffe, & Muthukumaraswamy, 2011;Minster, Jones, Elliffe, & Muthukumaraswamy, 2006) highlight that there is still much to learn in this area and that research employing the stimulus equivalence paradigm can still play a critical role in helping to isolate and identify key processes that underlie complex human behavior. One such area that requires further exploration is the issue of stimulus control exerted by sample and comparison stimuli in typical MTS procedures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using action dynamics to assess competing stimulus control during stimulus equivalence testing

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have identified potential sources of competing stimulus control in tests for stimulus equivalence. The present experiment employed the Nintendo Wii remote (Wiimote®) to investigate whether such competition would affect suboperant action dynamics (e.g., topographies of equivalence responses). Following one-to-many training on conditional discriminations sufficient to establish three 3-member equivalence classes, participants were presented with a test for equivalence responding that included five different trial types. These included "traditional" equivalence trials, on which the incorrect stimulus had previously been presented as a correct comparison stimulus during training, trials on which a novel unrelated word was provided as the incorrect comparison, and trials on which the incorrect stimulus varied in orthographical and phonological similarity to the sample stimulus. The presence of phonological and orthographic distractor stimuli significantly reduced the probability of equivalence-consistent responding, relative to neutral distractors, but this effect was almost exclusively seen in participants who failed to demonstrate equivalence on traditional equivalence trials. Analyses of correct response trajectories suggested that the prior history of reinforcement for choosing the incorrect stimulus on the traditional equivalence trial gave rise to greater competition than did phonological or orthographic similarity between the sample and incorrect comparisons.Keywords Stimulus control . Phonology . Orthography . Stimulus equivalence . Action dynamics . Humans . Stimulus control topography coherence . Naming theory . Relational frame theory Stimulus equivalence constitutes a behavioral phenomenon that may, in part, account for the development of symbolic relations among stimuli (e.g., Barnes, 1994;Dougher, 1998;Sidman, 1994Sidman, , 2000. Stimulus equivalence is typically examined in a matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure using conditional discriminations. For example, in the presence of an arbitrary stimulus A1 (sample), choosing another stimulus B1 (comparison) is reinforced. Then, in the presence of B1 (sample), choosing C1 (comparison) is reinforced. Stimulus equivalence requires that, in the presence of A1, participants choose C1 (transitivity) and can reverse both of the trained relations (choose A1 in the presence of B1 and C1 in the presence of B1; symmetry). Choosing A1 as a comparison when C1 is a sample (combined symmetry and transitivity) is often employed as the test of the emergence of the equivalence class (e.g., Sidman & Tailby, 1982).There are a number of competing explanations of stimulus equivalence and the role it plays in accounting for complex behavior (e.g

show abstract

Emergent Stimulus Relations Depend on Stimulus Correlation and Not on Reinforcement Contingencies

Cited by 19 publications

References 45 publications

Stimuli with identical contextual functions taught independently become functionally equivalent

Stimuli with identical contextual functions taught independently become functionally equivalent

Training Structures and the Formation of Equivalence Classes

Using action dynamics to assess competing stimulus control during stimulus equivalence testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About