Establishing Transfer from Identity to Arbitrary Matching Tasks Via Complex Stimuli Under Testing Conditions: A Follow-Up Study

Smeets, Paul M.; Schenk, Jacqueline J.; Barnes, Dermot

doi:10.1007/bf03395142

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the present time, therefore, it remains unclear exactly what implications the current study might have for previous research that has either found or failed to find sensitivity to reversed baseline conditional discriminations using only matching-to-sample procedures (Dube, McIlvane, Maguire, Mackay, & Stoddard, 1989;Pilgrim & Galizio, 1990Saunders et al, 1988;Spradlin, Cotter, & Baxley, 1973;Spradlin et al, 1992;. Parenthetically, however, future researchers might bear in mind that the common practice of presenting sample and comparison stimuli simultaneously during conditional discrimination training may allow subjects to scan back and forth between sample and comparison stimuli, thus giving rise to directly trained symmetrical relations (for a more detailed analysis of this and related issues, the reader is referred to Markham & Dougher, 1993;Smeets, Schenk, & Barnes, 1994Stromer et al, 1993).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incongruous Stimulus Pairing and Conditional Discrimination Training: Effects on Relational Responding

Roche

Barnes

Smeets

1997

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, 5 subjects were exposed to a stimulus‐pairing procedure in which two nonsense syllables, identified by a letter‐number code as A1 and C2, each predicted the onset of a sexual film clip, and the nonsense syllables A2 and C1 each predicted the onset of a nonsexual film clip. Subjects were then exposed to a matching‐to‐sample test in which the nonsense syllables A1 and A2 were presented as sample stimuli and C1 and C2 were presented as comparison stimuli and vice versa (i.e., C stimuli as samples and A stimuli as comparisons). All subjects matched A1 with C2 and A2 with C1. Subjects were then trained on the conditional discriminations A1‐B1, A2‐B2, B1‐C1, B2‐C2, after which the matching‐to‐sample test was again administered. All subjects continued to match A1 with C2 and A2 with C1 in accordance with the earlier stimulus‐pairing contingencies. An additional 5 subjects were exposed first to conditional discrimination training and testing before being exposed to the incongruous stimulus pairing and matching‐to‐sample testing. Under these conditions, 4 of the 5 subjects always matched A1 with C1 and A2 with C2. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, except that a matching‐to‐sample test was not administered following the initial training procedure. Under these conditions, matching‐to‐sample test performances were controlled by the contingencies that had immediately preceded the test. Experiment 3 indicated that initial matching‐to‐sample test performances were unlikely to change, even after repeated exposure to incongruous training and testing. Experiment 4 demonstrated that pretraining with unrelated stimulus sets increased the sensitivity of matching‐to‐sample test performances to incongruous contingencies when they were similar in format to those arranged during pretraining. These data may have implications for a behavior‐analytic interpretation of attitude formation and change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incongruous Stimulus Pairing and Conditional Discrimination Training: Effects on Relational Responding

Roche

Barnes

Smeets

1997

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have examined outcomes when compound stimuli have been used in conditional discriminations (e.g., Augustson, Dougher, & Markham, 2000;Pérez-González & Alonso-Á lvarez, 2008;Smeets, Schenk, & Barnes, 1994;Stromer & Mackay, 1990;Stromer & Stromer, 1990a, 1990b. Consider the study by Alonso-Á lvarez and Pérez-González (2006), who taught two P-A and P-B conditional discriminations (see Figure 1).…”

Section: Compound Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Verbal Stimulus Control in Intraverbal Behavior: Implications for Practice and Applied Research

Eikeseth

Smith

2013

Analysis Verbal Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common characteristic of the language deficits experienced by children with autism (and other developmental disorders) is their failure to acquire a complex intraverbal repertoire. The difficulties with learning intraverbal behaviors may, in part, be related to the fact that the stimulus control for such behaviors usually involves highly complex verbal stimuli. The antecedent verbal control of intraverbal behavior may involve discriminative stimuli (i.e., discriminated operants), conditional stimulus control, and/or control by compound stimuli. Distinctions among these different types of antecedent control are presented, along with recommendations for intervention procedures that may facilitate the acquisition of intraverbal behavior.

show abstract

“…Several researchers have studied the relations that emerge when compound stimuli are used as samples in interrelated conditional discriminations (e.g., Augustson, Dougher, & Markham, 2000;Markham & Dougher, 1993;Smeets, Schenk, & Barnes, 1994;Stromer & Mackay, 1990;Stromer & Stromer, 1990a, 1990b; also, the studies on contextual control cited above). None of these studies, however, addressed the issues involved in the above example.…”

Section: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _mentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Control by Compound Samples in Conditional Discriminations

Pérez-González

Alonso-Álvarez

2008

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested whether teaching control by single stimulus samples in conditional discriminations would result in common control of two-stimuli compound samples, and vice versa. In Experiment 1, 5 participants were first taught four single-sample conditional discriminations. The first conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample stimulus P1, select comparison stimulus A1 and not A2; given sample P2 select comparison A2 and not A1. The second conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample P1 select comparison B1 and not B2; given sample P2 select B2 and not B1. Different sample stimuli (Q1 and Q2) were used in the third and fourth conditional discriminations. Moreover, A1 and B1 were presented together as comparisons, such that, if Q1 was presented as the sample, A1 was correct and B1 was incorrect; and if Q2 was presented as the sample, B1 was correct and A1 was incorrect. A2 and B2 were also presented as comparisons. When Q1 was presented, A2 was correct and when Q2 was presented B2 was correct. After training with these four single stimulus sample discriminations, participants were tested with compound PQ samples presented with A1, A2, B1, and B2 as comparisons. If common control were established by the PQ stimuli, a participant would select A1 when P1Q1 was presented, A2 when P2Q1 was presented, B1 when P1Q2 was presented, and B2 when P2Q2 was presented. Such common control by PQ samples occurred in 4 of 5 participants. In Experiment 2, 4 participants were given reverse training. They were first taught to select the A1, A2, B1, and B2 stimuli in response to the appropriate PQ combinations and then probed on the single stimulus sample discriminations. All 4 participants were successful on this probe. Experiments 3 and 4 investigated the effects of teaching additional conditional discriminations with novel stimuli on subsequent transfer from the single-sample discriminations to performance on the compound-sample conditional discrimination.

show abstract

Establishing Transfer from Identity to Arbitrary Matching Tasks Via Complex Stimuli Under Testing Conditions: A Follow-Up Study

Cited by 10 publications

References 23 publications

Incongruous Stimulus Pairing and Conditional Discrimination Training: Effects on Relational Responding

Incongruous Stimulus Pairing and Conditional Discrimination Training: Effects on Relational Responding

An Analysis of Verbal Stimulus Control in Intraverbal Behavior: Implications for Practice and Applied Research

Common Control by Compound Samples in Conditional Discriminations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About