Stimulus control of eye orientations: Shaping S+ only versus shaping S- only

Stella, M. Elizabeth; Etzel, Barbara C.

doi:10.1016/0270-4684(86)90011-x

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, in Experiment 2, where the S + was manipulated, accurate responding was lower in the stimulus shaping condition across the test phases, compared to participant performance in Experiment 1 where we had modified the S-. This finding is not in line with previous comparisons of manipulating the S + and S-, as Stella and Etzel (1986) discovered lower accuracy in their stimulus shaping condition when the S- was manipulated. We did not design the study to explicitly test for these differences and therefore this observation may simply reflect differences in the sample that are not related to the training conditions.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…A further limitation relates to the way in which shaping or fading was implemented across the phases. Unlike some other studies on errorless learning and stimulus discrimination more generally (e.g., Graff & Green, 2004; Stella & Etzel, 1986) the participants’ progress through the experiment was not determined by accuracy or mastery. For example, all participants progressed through to the final generalisation phase independent of response accuracy during the earlier training phases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In Experiment 2 we sought to replicate the findings from Experiment 1 while adjusting some aspects of the task that have been shown to be important in the context of within-stimulus EL procedures. In Experiment 1 we manipulated the S- as part of the adaptations across training trials; however, previous research has suggested that manipulation of the S + may result in fewer errors during training ultimately impacting on acquisition (Stella & Etzel, 1986). Therefore, it is possible that manipulating the S + rather than the S-stimuli might alter the effectiveness of the EL procedures examined here.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparison of stimulus fading and stimulus shaping on perceptual category learning

Markham,

Austin,

Roderique-Davies

et al. 2023

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Errorless learning strategies such as stimulus fading and stimulus shaping are commonly used to teach complex skills like categorisation and concept formation. Despite widespread use, very few studies have explored the comparative effectiveness of these procedures in well controlled analyses. The vast majority of existing studies have been undertaken with clinical populations and have involved small numbers of participants (e.g., Single-case designs). The present study sought to compare stimulus fading, stimulus shaping and trial-and-error learning in a perceptual categorisation task. In Experiment 1, we found robust benefits of stimulus shaping when compared to stimulus fading or trial and error learning on measures of initial acquisition of discrimination and one measure of stimulus generalisation. These findings were replicated in a second experiment in which the dimension of fading/shaping was changed from a modification of the comparison stimuli (S-) to a modification of the target stimulus (S+). We discuss the implication our findings for the selection of errorless learning strategies in clinical settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of stimulus fading and stimulus shaping on perceptual category learning

Markham,

Austin,

Roderique-Davies

et al. 2023

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Developing auditory stimulus control: A note on methodology

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functions of the Environment in Behavioral Evolution

Glenn

Field

1994

BEHAV ANALYST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores some of the ways in which the environment functions with respect to behavior within an explanatory framework analogous to that of evolutionary biology. In both the behavioral and organic domains, the environment functions differently with respect to individual occurrences and evolutionary units. Within the behavioral domain, the problem of accounting for an occurrence of an operant instance differs from that of accounting for the existence of the operant unit of which the instance is a part. Maintaining these distinctions in levels of analysis within the behavioral domain, we focus first on operant units and operant instances as products of evolutionary processes occurring in the behavioral domain and second upon the causal role of the environment with respect to the existence of operant units and the occurrence of operant instances. The environment's function is selective with respect to origin, maintenance, suppression, and extinction of behavioral populations. At the level of operant instances, the environment has instantiating functions-evocative or alterative. Evocative functions are exemplified by discriminative relations, and alterative functions include both conditional and motivative relations. Implications are considered regarding extension of the analogy to more complex behavior-environment relations.

show abstract

Stimulus control of eye orientations: Shaping S+ only versus shaping S- only

Cited by 11 publications

References 24 publications

A comparison of stimulus fading and stimulus shaping on perceptual category learning

A comparison of stimulus fading and stimulus shaping on perceptual category learning

Developing auditory stimulus control: A note on methodology

Functions of the Environment in Behavioral Evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About