Reorganization of equivalence classes: effects of preliminary training and meaningful stimuli

Abstract

In Condition 1, adults learned the baseline relations for the three equivalence classes A1-B1-C1-D1-E1, A2-B2-C2-D2-E2, and A3-B3-C3-D3-E3. Classes contained abstract shapes in the ABS and four preliminary training groups. Each class in the PIC group contained one picture and four abstract shapes. Before class formation for four other groups, preliminary training involved establishing identity (CC) or arbitrary (CX) relations either with or without a delay. Without preliminary training, classes formed with low and high likelihoods in the ABS and PIC groups, respectively. Preliminary training with no delay produced modest increases in class formation, while preliminary training with delay produced large increases in class formation. Condition 2 replicated Condition 1 but with training of reassigned BC and CD relations that linked C from one class to B and D from another class: B1-C2, B2-C3, B3-C1, C2-D1, C3-D2, and C1-D3. Subsequent tests assessed the emergence of the reorganized classes A1-B1-C2-D1-E1, A2-B2-C3-D2-E2, and A3-B3-C1-D3-E3. All preliminary training procedures increased likelihood of forming the reorganized classes to the level seen in the PIC group. Greater gains were produced by preliminary training with no delays than with delays. Test performances also showed how preliminary training influenced baseline acquisition speed and participant-defined relations.

Equivalence class formation as a function of preliminary training with pictorial stimuli

“…The study also replicates previous studies by Arntzen and colleagues (Arntzen et al, , , , and Arntzen, Nartey, et al, ) by showing that class enhancement is related to the duration of delay that separates the termination of the sample and the presentation of the comparison stimuli during preliminary training of conditional relations prior to class formation. In the present experiment, delays as little as 3 s were enough to produce class enhancement.…”

“…In both studies, the percentage of participants who formed classes in the ABS condition (0–17%) was in sharp contrast to those who formed classes when the C stimulus was a meaningful picture (70–83%). The enhancing effects of the inclusion of a meaningful picture in the set of to‐be‐formed equivalence classes replicated earlier findings (Arntzen et al, , , ; Arntzen, Nartey, et al, ) and, thus, provides a measure of reliability of the effects.…”

“…Four previous studies by Arntzen and coworkers (Arntzen et al, , 2018a(Arntzen et al, , 2018bArntzen, Nartey, et al, 2015) have shown an enhancing effect when DMTS is used in preliminary training. However, three of those studies (Arntzen et al, , 2018bArntzen, Nartey, et al, 2015) only compared SMTS to 6-s delayed matching (i.e., 6 s separated the offset of a sample stimulus from the onset of the comparison stimuli during preliminary training), while one study included more delays (Arntzen et al, 2018a) and found a responding in accordance of equivalence was a graded function of delays. The differential effect of delays on subsequent class formation when preliminary training is done with pictorial stimuli is, however, unknown.…”

“…In the previous studies that investigated the effects of preliminary training (Arntzen et al, ; Arntzen, Nartey, et al, ; Arntzen, Nartey, & Fields, , ; Fields et al, ; Mensah & Arntzen, ; Nartey et al, , ), discriminations were established between one or more members of the potential class of abstract shapes and other abstract stimuli. As mentioned above, including pictures as the C stimuli in three 5‐member classes increases the probability of equivalence class formation.…”

On the effectiveness of including meaningful pictures in the formation of equivalence classes

“…A recent line of research has explored the effects of including familiar color pictures as one of the stimuli in each potential class to model or mimic meaningfulness in a laboratory setting (Arntzen & Nartey, ; Arntzen, Nartey, & Fields, , , , ; Fields, Arntzen, Nartey, & Eilifsen, ; Mensah & Arntzen, ; Nartey, Arntzen, & Fields, , , ; Nedelcu, Fields, & Arntzen, ; Travis, Fields, & Arntzen, ; see also an overview in Fields & Arntzen, ). The common procedure in these experiments is to train adult participants on 12 conditional discriminations using a linear series (LS) training structure (A➔B➔C➔D➔E) and test for the formation of three 5‐member equivalence classes.…”