Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design

Abstract

The present study investigated differential effects of training design on probability of an equivalence outcome. Forty normal adults were assigned to four different groups. Subjects in the first three groups were exposed to a C-A equivalence test directly following linear series (AB and BC), many-to-one (AB and CB), or one-to-many (BA and BC) training, respectively, while the subjects in the fourth group, following linear series training, were exposed to a symmetry test before the C-A test. Three comparison stimuli were used throughout the experiment to minimize effects of control by negative comparisons. Number of subjects showing equivalence were highest following one-tomany training and lowest following linear series training. Several previously suggested explanations of the differential effects of training design are discussed and shown to be unsatisfactory. The minimal conditional discriminations that are prerequisites for the testing of emergent equivalence relations are established by any of the following match-to-sample procedures: (a) linear series (LS), A-B and B-C, in which the comparison stimuli from the first conditional discrimination training serve as samples in the second, (b) many-to-one (MTO; comparison as node), A-B and C-B, in which the same stimuli are comparisons for different sets of samples in the first and in the second task, or (c) one-to-many (OTM; sample as node), 8-A and 8-C, in which the same stimuli serve as samples in two tasks with different sets of comparison stimuli (see Fields & Verhave, 1987; Saunders, Saunders, Williams, & Spradlin, 1993). Differences in outcome as a function of training design, that is, OTM versus MTO training, have been studied with mentally retarded subjects

Probability of Stimulus Equivalence as a Function of Class Size vs. Number of Classes

“…The current study has replicated earlier findings in which an increase in reaction time from training to test, and a decrease during the test has been shown (Arntzen & Holth, 1997;Holth & Arntzen, 1998a, 1998b. Fields and Verhave (1987) have postulated that as nodal distance increases, accuracy of responding decreases.…”

“…Similar results with 3 three-member stimulus classes were found by Arntzen and Holth (1997) when comparing percentages of subjects responding in accord with equivalence following linear series, many-to-one, and one-to-many training structure. Following a linear series training structure, only 2-3 of 10 subjects responded in accord with a positive equivalence test.…”

Equivalence Outcome in Single Subjects as a Function of Training Structure

“…In Experiment 3, equivalence outcome was tested successively following training according to a many-to-one training structure and one-to-many training structure with both 3 and 4 members in each class. In accord with the results of Arntzen and Holth (1997) the present results indicated a superiority of the oneto-many over alternative training structures as regards the . probability of an equivalence outcome.…”

A Derived Relations Analysis of Approach-Avoidance Conflict: Implications for the Behavioral Analysis of Human Anxiety

“…In fact, several studies have examined various factors that may raise yields from stimulus equivalence training paradigms closer to 100%. For instance, some studies have compared the relative yield rates of one-to-many (A-B, A-C, A-D), many-to-one (B-A, C-A), and linear training (A-B-C-D) protocols (e.g., Arntzen & Holth, 1997;Hove, 2003;Smeets & Barnes-Holmes, 2005). Interestingly, however, the current study consciously employed quite effective procedures for training and testing purposes.…”

“…This is a method long understood to increase acquisition rates of conditional discriminations (see Doan & Cooper, 1971). In addition, a one-to-many training protocol was employed, rather than the less effective linear protocol (Arntzen & Holth, 1997).…”