Patterns of eye movement in matching-to-sample tasks

Abstract

The present study evaluated whether during a matching-to-sample procedure (MTS), the time spent observing stimuli is related to the establishment of selection or rejection controlling relationships in human participants. It also evaluated whether different response topographies (i.e., participants using the keyboard or mouse) would influence the duration of eye fixations. Ten college students participated. The procedure established conditional relationships among six sets of abstract stimuli. Five participants selected the comparison stimuli using a computer mouse and five used a keyboard. An eye-scan device recorded eye movements throughout the training procedure. After participants completed training, probes verified whether the conditional relationships learned were controlled by selection (e.g., if A1, select B1), by rejection (e.g., if A1, reject B2), or both. All participants displayed a similar pattern of stimuli observation. Time spent observing the sample stimulus (e.g., A1) was longer than observing the comparison stimuli (e.g., B1 and B2). Time spent observing S+ (positive stimuli; e.g., B1) was longer than observing S-(negative stimuli; e.g., B2). Duration of eye fixation was not related to selection or rejection controlling relationships, but different response topographies appeared to modulate the amount of time spent observing stimuli.

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

“…Future research could also include recording of eye‐movements. Experiments within stimulus equivalence research that have included eye‐tracking measures have shown that participants observe the sample stimulus more than the comparison stimuli, and that they observe the positive comparison more than the negative comparison (Huziwara, das Graças de Souza, & Tomanari, ). It would be interesting to explore the effect of different delays, especially those between 3 s and 9 s, on eye‐movements, particularly in light of the effect of delay on equivalence yields reported here.…”

A low‐cost platform for eye‐tracking research: Using Pupil© in behavior analysis

“…Palmer, 2010). In visual discrimination tasks, for example, recording the participants' gaze along their button-pressing responses has already shown promise as a valuable source of information (e.g., Dube et al, 1999Dube et al, , 2010Huziwara, de Souza, & Tomanari, 2016;Perez, Endemann, Pessôa, & Tomanari, 2015;Steingrimsdottir & Arntzen, 2016). This line of research has also rekindled behavior analysts' more general interest in the study of eye movements (e.g., Paeye & Madelain, 2011), a topic that Holland and colleagues (Holland, 1958;Schroeder & Holland, 1968, 1969 had previously pioneered.…”

Os efeitos do atraso em tarefas de MTS sobre o estabelecimento de classes de equivalência e os parâmetros de fixação do olhar

“…(e.g., Schroeder, 1970;Schoreder & Holland, 1968). Pesquisadores têm-se utilizado do rastreamento dos movimentos dos olhos como respostas de observação em procedimentos para investigar os processos de discriminação (e.g., Endemann, 2013;Perez, 2008;Ramos, 2013, 2017, Schroeder, 1970) e discriminação condicional (e.g., Dube et al, 2006Dube et al, , 2010Hamasaki, 2009;Huziwara, de Souza, & Tomanari, 2016;Steingrimsdottir & Arntzen, 2016 (Yanoff & Myron, 1936/2011.…”