Equivalence Class Establishment with Two-, Three-, and Four-Choice Matching to Sample by Senior Citizens

Abstract

In Experiment 1, 12 senior citizens from the community were trained with 18 sets of conditional discriminations. Training included 2-, 3-, and 4-choice matching-to-sample (MTS) configurations in linear series (LS), many-to-one (MTO), and one-to-many (OTM) training structures. Training structure order was counterbalanced across participants. The design permitted tests for class establishment ranging from 2 classes of 3 stimuli each to 4 classes of 4 stimuli each in the LS , MTO, and OTM structures. ThE3 experiment tested the hypothesis that 3-and 4-choice MTS would increase the probability of class establishment, relative to 2-choice MTS, by reducing the potential for sample/S-control to arise during training. Results showed , however, that training with 3-and 4-choice MTS did not significantly increase equivalence class establishment and unequivocal evidence of sample/S-control was found in only 1 instance of a 2-choice training and testing structure. Experiment 2 systematically replicated Experiment 1 with 6 additional senior citizens in a O-s delayed MTS paradigm. As in Experiment 1, equivalence class establishment was not related to number of choice stimuli. The delayed MTS paradigm , however, required fewer training trials to establish the conditional relations and led to more class establishment overall. The results are compared to data from previous studies with younger and older participants.Stimulus equivalence refers to the substitutability of one stimulus for another in a given context. Stimulus equivalence is a particularly interesting phenomenon because the equivalence of previously unrelated stimuli can arise without direct training (e.g., Sidman,

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

“…Estudos sobre emergência de relações condicionais arbitrárias entre estímulos, sobretudo aqueles baseados no paradigma de equivalência de estímulos (Sidman & Tailby, 1982), tipicamente são realizados utilizando procedimentos de pareamento ao modelo (Arntzen & Holth, 2000a;de Rose, Kato, Thé, & Kledaras, 1997;McIlvane et al, 1987;Moreira, Todorov, & Nalini, 2006;Saunders & Green, 1999;Saunders, Chaney, & Marquis, 2005;Sidman, 1994). Embora esse procedimento tenha se mostrado adequado para o estudo de relações emergentes, as variáveis das quais a formação de classes de equivalência é função ainda não são bem conhecidas (Smeets, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2000;Stromer, McIlvane, & Serna, 1993).…”

Training Conditional Discriminations with Fixed and Titrated Delayed Matching-to-Sample in Children

“…Previous studies in adults have shown that DMTS generates high yields of derived responding. For example, Saunders et al (2005) found that senior citizens experiencing DMTS had higher yields of responding in accordance with stimulus equivalence than participants experiencing simultaneous matching. Additionally, some studies have indicated that an experience with longer delays is more effective than an experience with short delays in generating responding in accordance with stimulus equivalence (Arntzen, 2006) or symmetry alone (Vaidya & Smith, 2006).…”

“…Some studies have provided data suggesting that MTO is the most effective training structure (Saunders, Saunders, Williams, & Spradlin, 1993;Saunders et al, 2005;Saunders, Drake, & Spradlin, 1999), while other studies have shown that the OTM training structure is more effective (Arntzen, 2004;Arntzen & Holth, 1997. Some of the studies reporting the superiority of MTO have included children as participants (Arntzen & Vaidya, 2008;Saunders et al, 1999).…”

“…Lately, a few studies have investigated the differential effects of simultaneous matching and DMTS in equivalence tasks. For example, Saunders, Chaney, and Marquis (2005) found that elderly participants experiencing a 0 s delay showed higher yields of derived responding than participants experiencing simultaneous matching. Furthermore, it was found that the 0 s DMTS was most effective in establishing conditional discriminations.…”

Equivalência de estímulos e responder por exclusão em idosos com e sem comprometimento cognitivo

“…A estrutura pode ser linear, na qual se ensinam as relações entre um conjunto de estímulos em relação ao próximo previamente determinado, ou seja: AB -BC -CD etc. ; a estrutura é chamada de "um para muitos", quando há um conjunto de estímulos base que é usado como referência (modelo) para o ensino de todas as relações, como, por exemplo, AB -AC -AD; e a estrutura pode ser chamada de "muitos para um", quando os diferentes conjuntos de estímulos -B, C, D -são relacionados como modelo a um mesmo conjunto de estímulo -A, que serve sempre como base para a apresentação dos estímulos de comparação: BA, CA, DA (Saunders, Chaney & Marquis, 2005). De Rose, Kato, Thé e Kledaras (1997) afirmam, com base na análise dados de pesquisas de outros autores, que, para pessoas com deficiência intelectual, o arranjo "muitos-para-um" mostra-se mais eficaz.…”