Equivalence Class Formation in Language‐able and Language‐disabled Children

Abstract

Stimulus equivalence seems to have relevance to the study of semantics and of language more generally. If so, there may be a relation between language use and the demonstration of stimulus equivalence. This was examined in three groups of children ranging in chronological age and matched on a conventional measure of mental age: normally developing preschoolers, retarded children who used speech or signs spontaneously and appropriately, and retarded children who did not. All children were taught a series of four related discriminations and were then tested to determine if classes of equivalent stimuli had formed. All of the language-able children (retarded and normal) formed equivalence classes, whereas none of the language-disabled children did so. Although the exact nature of the relation between stimulus equivalence and language remains to be clarified, these results support the view that stimulus equivalence is a phenomenon with relevance to language.

The Role of Joint Control in the Manded Selection Responses of Both Vocal and Non-vocal Children with Autism

“…One set of solutions of a math problem could be taught to a participant using the joint-control training procedures (training components of identified skills as verbal rules jointly), and generality with respect to other problems could then be tested. Devany et al (1986) suggested that training in equivalence-class formation or similar behavioral processes should assist in language acquisition and vice versa (p. 254). These two experiments indicated that joint-control training can produce results similar to those attributed to equivalence training.…”

Interpreting Verbal Behavior

“…For example, functional magnetic resonance imaging and positron-emission tomography (PET) can assess the locus of neural activity while the subject engages in a verbal task (e.g., Raichle, 1997 Neural observations obtained from model preparations with nonhuman animals can also contribute to the interpretation of verbal behavior. For example, the biobehavioral processes involved in equivalence relations (Sidman & Tailby, 1982) are thought to play a central role in verbal behavior (e.g., Barnes & Hampson, 1997;Devaney, Hayes, & Nelson, 1986;Dugdale & Lowe, 1990;Hayes, 1989;Hayes & Hayes, 1992;Horne & Lowe, 1996). As one component of an equivalence relation, the sample stimulus and its associated comparison stimulus are interchangeable after matching-to-sample training.…”

Formación de clases de equivalencia en niños prelingüísticos de 11 meses de edad

“…Other research has assessed the linguistic conditions under which equivalence relations may emerge (De Alcântara Gil, de Oliveira, & McIlvane, 2011;Carr et al, 2000;Devany, Hayes, & Nelson, 1986;Peláez, Gewirtz, Sanchez, & Mahabir, 2000). One of those studies (Devany et al,1986) evaluated the relationship between the level of linguistic development and the establishment of equivalence relations.…”

“…One of those studies (Devany et al,1986) evaluated the relationship between the level of linguistic development and the establishment of equivalence relations. Three groups of children were trained (preschoolers with linguistic abilities, children with an intellectual disability and limited linguistic abilities, and children with an intellectual disability and no linguistic abilities) in four symbolic matching-to-sample (SMTS) tasks.…”

“…Results showed that the participants with normal or limited linguistic abilities showed evidence of the formation of equivalence classes, whereas those without linguistic abilities responded at a random level. These results led the authors to conclude that linguistic abilities are closely related to the emergence of Peláez et al (2000) noted that the results obtained by Devany et al (1986) were not entirely clear, as it was difficult to determine whether the intellectual disabilities of the participants were associated with their difficulty in performing the equivalence test, or whether failure on it was a result of the deficit in their linguistic skills. Therefore, they replicated the work of Devany et al (1986) with nine children aged 21-to-25 months with normal development but limited expressive linguistic skills.…”