The Establishment of Visual Equivalence Classes with a Go/No-Go Successive Matching-to-Sample Procedure

Howland, Timothy G.; Zhelezoglo, Karina N.; Hanson, Robbie J.; Miguel, Caio F.; Lantaya, Charisse A.

doi:10.1007/s40732-020-00434-x

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, 14 out of 24 participants could also tact the visual stimuli, showing a transfer from listener to speaker behavior. In combination, the results from previous research (Howland et al, 2021; Lantaya et al, 2018; Zhelezoglo et al, 2021) seem to support the use of S‐MTS as an alternative to simultaneous three‐choice MTS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Words were input into a text‐to‐speech application and converted to audio files. Written instructions for each condition were presented on separate index cards measuring 7.62 x 12.7 cm with Times New Roman 12‐point font and were adapted from previous research (Howland et al, 2021; Zhelezoglo et al, 2021; see Table 2). Participants were required to read instructions silently and then summarize them aloud to the primary investigator prior to each condition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…duration of 8 s regardless of whether participants touched/clicked the white box or refrained from doing so (Debert et al, 2009;Howland et al, 2021;Lantaya et al, 2018;Zhelezoglo et al, 2021).…”

Section: Order Of Experimental Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a typical go/no-go S-MTS trial, a sample stimulus appears, followed by an observing response (e.g., selecting the sample stimulus), after which an individual comparison stimulus is presented in its place. If the comparison stimulus falls within the same class as the sample, participants are taught to touch the comparison (go), and if the comparison and sample are unrelated, participants are taught to refrain from touching (no-go) the comparison (Cullinan et al, 1998(Cullinan et al, , 2000Frank & Wasserman, 2005;Howland et al, 2021;Lantaya et al, 2018;Smeets et al, 2006;Zhelezoglo et al, 2021). Lantaya et al (2018) utilized a go/no-go S-MTS procedure to establish visual-visual conditional relations among stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, the short comparison duration (5 s) may have prevented participants from responding during emergence tests (Debert et al, 2009). Howland et al (2021) addressed the aforementioned limitations by providing written instructions prior to each condition so participants could reference them at any time. They also increased the mastery criterion from one to two blocks at 100% during training conditions, increased comparison duration to 8 s, and exposed participants to either one or three blocks of pretests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The establishment of auditory equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

Hanson

Miguel

2021

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The go/no-go successive matching-to-sample (S-MTS) procedure involves the presentation of a sample followed by one comparison in the same location. Participants are required to either touch (go) or refrain from touching (no-go) related and unrelated comparisons, respectively. One advantage of S-MTS is that both sample and comparisons can be auditory. Thus, the purpose of Experiment 1 was to establish three 3-member auditory equivalence classes using familiar dictated words. After training AB and AC relations, 16 out of 16 participants met emergence criterion for symmetry (BA/CA), 12 out of 16 for transitivity/equivalence (BC/CB), and 9 out of 16 for intraverbals, for which testing involved vocalizing relations among auditory stimuli. The purpose of Experiment 2 was to assess the potential influence of stimulus topography on equivalence class formation and the emergence of intraverbal behavior. After training AB and AC relations with unfamiliar stimuli, 16 out of 16 participants met emergence criterion for symmetry (BA/CA), 13 out of 16 for transitivity/equivalence (BC/CB), and 8 out of 16 for intraverbals. Results suggest that the S-MTS procedure may serve as an alternative to simultaneous MTS in the development of auditory equivalence classes.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Order Of Experimental Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The establishment of auditory equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

Hanson

Miguel

2021

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The establishment of auditory–visual equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

Zhelezoglo

Hanson

Miguel

et al. 2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study evaluated the effectiveness of a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure (S‐MTS) to establish auditory–visual equivalence classes with college students. A sample and a comparison were presented, one at a time, in the same location. During training, after an auditory stimulus was presented, a green box appeared in the center of the screen for participants to touch to produce the comparison. Touching the visual comparison that was related to the auditory sample (e.g., A1B1) produced points, while touching or refraining from touching an unrelated comparison (e.g., A1B2) produced no consequences. Following AB/AC training, participants were tested on untrained relations (i.e., BA/CA and BC/CB), as well as tacting and sorting. During BA/CA relations tests, after touching the visual sample, the auditory stimulus was presented along with a white box for participants to respond. During BC/CB relations tests, after touching the visual sample, a visual comparison appeared. Across 2 experiments, all participants met emergence criterion for untrained relations and for sorting. Additionally, 14 out of 24 participants tacted all visual stimuli correctly. Results suggest the auditory–visual S‐MTS procedure is an effective alternative to simultaneous MTS for establishing conditional relations and auditory‐visual equivalence classes.

show abstract

The Use of the Go/No-Go Successive Matching-to-Sample Procedure with Nonverbal Auditory Stimuli to Establish Equivalence Classes and Speaker Behavior

Hanson

Sordello

Engell

et al. 2022

Analysis Verbal Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Establishment of Visual Equivalence Classes with a Go/No-Go Successive Matching-to-Sample Procedure

Cited by 6 publications

References 27 publications

The establishment of auditory equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

The establishment of auditory equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

The establishment of auditory–visual equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

The Use of the Go/No-Go Successive Matching-to-Sample Procedure with Nonverbal Auditory Stimuli to Establish Equivalence Classes and Speaker Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About