Errors and Response Latencies as a Function of Nodal Distance in 5-Member Equivalence Classes

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the relationship between nodal distance, response accuracy, and response latency during testing for emergent relations. In both experiments, undergraduate subjects first learned A-B, B-C, C-D, and D-E constituent relations of six 5-member equivalence classes. In Experiment 1, only selected tests of trained and of 0-, 1-, and 2-node tests of emergent relations were carried out in order to avoid testing of 0-or 1-node relations that might form constituents of the 2-node relations which were tested. In Experiment 2, all possible trained and derived relations were tested in random order. Although considerable individual variability was observed in both response times and accuracy for the 14 subjects completing Experiment 1, latencies for correct responses generally increased and response accuracy decreased as a function of nodal distance. There was no nodal distance effect for latencies of incorrect responses. In Experiment 2, these relationships between response times, response accuracy, and nodal distance were observed for 3-node relations in 5 out of 6 subjects. Analysis of error response latencies for 2 subjects who made sufficient errors revealed a nodal distance effect for 1 subject but not for the other. In both experiments, response times decreased as testing progressed, but response accuracy increased during testing only in the second experiment.In experiments on stimulus equivalence human subjects first learn a minimal number of relations between individual stimuli in a set. Each stimulus has a trained relation with at least one other in the set, so that all the stimuli are minimally interlinked. If the subjects are then able to demonstrate, without further training, additional relations between the Garside, B. Rogers, and S.Turner who contributed to the collection of data for Experiment 1. We also thank Tom Critchfield and William Dube for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

The Effects of Different Training Structures in the Establishment of Conditional Discriminations and Subsequent Performance on Tests for Stimulus Equivalence

“…The reaction time was longer with an increased number of nodes, that is, the reaction time was longer in the LS training structure with 4 members than with 3-members. This is in accordance with previous research (Arntzen & Holth, 2000b;Bentall, et al, 1999;Fields, Adams, Newman, & verhave, 1990), but not in accordance with Imam (2006).…”

“…However, the effects of the number of nodes can only be studied when using a linear series training structure, because increasing the number of members in each class does not influence the number of nodes in MTO or OTM. A number of studies have found nodal effects, i.e., stimulus equivalence outcome decrease and reaction time increase, to be a function of the number of nodes (e.g., Arntzen & Holth, 2000b;Bentall, Jones, & Dickins, 1999;Fields, Landon-Jimenez, Buffington, & Adams, 1995;Kennedy, 1991). On the other hand, some other findings contradict this when the number of trials is equal per nodal number (Imam, 2006).…”

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

“…Se, por exemplo, os compostos em um treino discriminativo com discriminações simples fossem formados por três elementos, em vez de dois como tem sido feito (e.g., A1B1C1) e, após os treinos, fossem conduzidos os testes AB, BA, A-B, B-A, BC, CB, B-C, C-B, AC, CA, A-C e CA, poder-se-ia falar Alguns autores têm proposto que a latência de resposta (ou tempo de reação) pode funcionar como uma medida indireta da formação de classes de equivalência (e.g., Spencer & Chase, 1996). No presente estudo, as latências de resposta ao estímulo de escolha/comparação foram registradas e alguns padrões encontrados, nos dois estudos, replicaram estudos anteriores (e.g., Bentall et al, 1998;Spencer, & Chase, 1996): (1) latências semelhantes para as relações de cada classe de equivalência; (2) latências maiores para as relações de transitividade e equivalência.…”

Equivalence Classes With Requirements for Short Response Latencies

“…In addition, it has been reported that comparison response latencies increase from directly taught baseline trials to derived symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence probe trials (Bentall, Dickins, & Fox, 1993;Spencer & Chase, 1996;Wulfert & Hayes, 1988), and when tests for emergent relations involve increasing numbers of nodes (Bentall, Jones, & Dickins, 1998;Fields, Adams, Verhave, & Newman, 1990;Fields, Landon-Jimenez, Buffington, & Adams, 1995;Imam, 2001;Kennedy, 1991;Kennedy, Itkonen, & Lindquist, 1994;Spencer & Chase, 1996). This positive relation between latencies and nodal number also has suggested to some that the formation of equivalence relations involves verbal mediating behavior in the form of stimulus names (e.g., or problem-solving strategies (e.g., .…”