Sample Stimulus Control Shaping and Restricted Stimulus Control in Capuchin Monkeys: A Methodological Note

Brino, Ana Leda F.; Barros, Romariz da Silva; Galvão, Olavo de Faria; Garotti, Marilice Fernandes; Cruz, Ilara Reis Nogueira da; Santos, José Ricardo Dos; Dube, William V.; McIlvane, William J.

doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.95-387

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(2011). Unlike the results reported by Brino and colleagues (2011), reasonably high accuracy was observed on most steps of shaping training. Nevertheless, stimulus control by the arbitrary components was not consistently established until the final steps of the procedure.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 97%

Restricted stimulus control in stimulus control shaping with a capuchin monkey.

Brino

Galvão

Barros

et al. 2012

Psychology & Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching the first instances of arbitrary matching to sample to nonhumans can prove difficult and time consuming. Stimulus control relations may develop that differ from those intended by the experimenter – even when stimulus control shaping procedures are used. This paper reports efforts to identify sources of shaping program failure with a capuchin monkey. Procedures began with a baseline of identity matching. During subsequent shaping trials, compound comparison stimuli had two components – one identical to and another different from the sample. The identical component was eliminated gradually by removing portions across trials (i.e., subtracting stimulus elements). The monkey performed accurately throughout shaping. At a late stage in the program, probe tests were conducted: (1) arbitrary matching trials that had all elements of the identical comparison removed and (2) other trials that included residual elements. During the test, the monkey performed at low levels on the former trials and higher levels on the latter. These results suggested that higher accuracy was due merely to continued control by the residual elements: the target arbitrary matching relations had not been learned. Thus, it appears that procedures that gradually transform identity matching baselines into arbitrary matching can fail by inadvertently shaping restricted control by residual elements. Subsequent probes at the end of the shaping series showed a successful transfer of stimulus control from identity to arbitrary matching after further programming steps apparently overcame the restricted stimulus control.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 97%

Restricted stimulus control in stimulus control shaping with a capuchin monkey.

Brino

Galvão

Barros

et al. 2012

Psychology & Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sample stimulus control shaping method has been used subsequently to establish such baselines with both nonverbal humans (e.g., Carr, Wilkinson, Blackman, & McIlvane, 2000) and Cebus apella (e.g., Brino et al, 2011). In both illustrative studies, however, the programs broke down (i.e., led to incorrect selections) at points along the way.…”

Section: Stimulus Control Shapingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Things We Learned From Sidman and Some We Did Not (We Think)

McIlvane

Kledaras

2012

European Journal of Behavior Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To begin, we want to place our title in context. Many people that we have met throughout our careers assumed that we were Murray's graduate students -because (we think) the first author was a student in his research group in the 1970s, both of us received our graduate degrees from Northeastern University, and we have pursued some of the same research interests that interested him. In reality, that is an honor that we cannot claim. We were not his students in the strictest sense of that relationship.Our advisor was Larry Stoddard. Our research with Larry had a somewhat different focus than the main thrust of Murray's work. We focused mainly on stimulus control processes involved in functional communication of persons with little or no functional language. We published many papers with Larry as professional colleagues, but we have no joint authorships with Murray. Moreover, when we were junior researchers, Murray was burdened with administrative jobs and split work sites (Northeastern University in Boston and the Shriver Center in Waltham). We saw him only rarely -mostly in those occasional research meetings that he could attend. After he retired, we saw him only a little more. Thus, we cannot even claim a de facto post-graduate student relationships (much as we would have liked such an arrangement if circumstances had permitted).Despite this history, we do claim Murray as our teacher -because that is a fact. In the new APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis, the first author (2012) wrote this dedication: "This chapter is dedicated to Murray Sidman, who taught us how to think scientifically [emphasis added here] through his writing and our too-infrequent personal contacts over many years… I am not certain that Murray would agree with everything I have written here, but I am fairly certain that he would agree that analyses such as these may help move our field forward."The purpose of that chapter was to amplify on Murray's (1986a) chapter in which he first talked about the 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and n-term behavior analytic units. In that outlet, it was possible to explore that rich subject in a manner not usually available in a typical chapter or journal article. We fully expect some psychologists to describe the chapter as "ponderous" or "impenetrable." If so, they should blame Murray in part for that quality; he taught everyone in his sphere of influence to ponder and truly penetrate problems -even when a superficial analysis would be sufficient to meet current academic contingencies. Murray always demanded more of himself and led the rest of us by example. As the dedication implies, Murray taught us how to think, but not what to think.We claim that we learned some things but not other things from Murray with some trepidation, hence the "we think" disclaimer in our title. Research TranslationThese days, a survey of professional journals in the biomedical or behavioral sciences would often encounter a term that was unheard of twenty years ago -translational research. When a new term is introduced and broadly affects fields...

show abstract

“…With minimally verbal individuals, we have observed instances in which final performance breakdowns occurred when the difference between the final and penultimate program steps differed by only a few pixels – even one – out of hundreds that comprised form stimuli to be discriminated. This phenomenon is also demonstrable with nonhuman primates doing similar tasks (Brino et al, 2011, 2012). …”

Section: The Present Challenge and Program Objectivementioning

confidence: 71%

Teaching stimulus–stimulus relations to minimally verbal individuals: reflections on technology and future directions

McIlvane

Gerard

Kledaras

et al. 2016

European Journal of Behavior Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses recent methodological approaches and investigations that are aimed at developing reliable behavioral technology for teaching stimulus-stimulus relations to individuals who are minimally verbal and show protracted difficulty in acquiring such relations. The paper has both empirical and theoretical content. The empirical component presents recent data concerning the possibility of generating rapid relational learning in individuals who do not initially show it. The theoretical component (1) considers decades of methodological investigations with this population and (2) suggests a testable hypothesis concerning some individuals exhibit unusual difficulties in learning. Given this background, we suggest a way forward to better understand and perhaps resolve these learning challenges.

show abstract

Sample Stimulus Control Shaping and Restricted Stimulus Control in Capuchin Monkeys: A Methodological Note

Cited by 8 publications

References 28 publications

Restricted stimulus control in stimulus control shaping with a capuchin monkey.

Restricted stimulus control in stimulus control shaping with a capuchin monkey.

Some Things We Learned From Sidman and Some We Did Not (We Think)

Teaching stimulus–stimulus relations to minimally verbal individuals: reflections on technology and future directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About