A comparison of Match-to-Sample and Respondent-Type training of equivalence classes

Abstract

Throughout the 25-year history of research on stimulus equivalence, one feature of the training procedure has remained constant, namely, the requirement of operant responding during the training procedures. The present investigation compared the traditional match-to-sample (MTS) training with a more recent respondent-type (ReT) procedure. Another consistent feature of the equivalence paradigm is the apparent stipulation that both training and testing must occur before equivalence emerges. In this respect, a more idiosyncratic measure of class acquisition would be desirable. Multidimensional scaling, as a class of exploratory techniques, is introduced as a possible addition to the stimulus equivalence paradigm.Results from 35 subjects in 3 experiments suggest that while the respondent-type training method can be an effective procedure, the operant-based match-to-sample method was clearly more effective in tests for symmetry, equivalence, and extended equivalence. The addition of a scaling procedure proved valuable and showed that both training methods facilitated the emergence of derived relations to varying degrees. Results are evaluated in relation to the importance of broadening the necessary and sufficient training conditions and response requirements for the emergence of stimulus equivalence.When verbally able humans are taught a series of interrelated conditional discriminations, the stimuli involved often become related to each other in untrained ways. For example, when a subject is taught to select a stimulus B in the presence of a stimulus A, and additionally, to select a stimulus C in the presence of stimul us A, it is likely that the subject will also select A in the presence of B (symmetry), A in the presence of C (symmetry), and B in the presence of C and C in the presence of B (equivalence) without explicit training to do so.Portions of this research were conducted as part of Michael Clayton's doctoral research program under supervision of Linda J. Hayes. Much appreciation is owed to Jiang Qian and Dermot Barnes-Holmes for their contributions to this project. We also thank William Dube and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful comments. Address correspondence to Michael

Sequential Stimulus Pairing Procedure for the Students with Intellectual Disabilities

“…According to Table 2, Figures 2 and 3, all students established equivalence relations between pictures, Hiragana words and spoken sounds through sequential stimulus pairing training. Our results replicate the previous finding that equivalence relations (Clayton & Hayes, 2004;Leader & Barnes-Holmes, 2001), Kanji reading skills (Takahashi et al, 2011) and sight word reading (Ruwe et al, 2011) can be acquired by observing visual stimuli such as stimulus pairing training and flashcard training. Each student acquired t at least 12 Hiragana words reading through the training.…”

“…They did not use corresponding picture stimulus during the training. Other study showed that stimulus pairing procedure is even more effective to construct the equivalence relations than MTS procedure when nameable stimuli were used (Clayton & Hayes, 2004;Leader & Barnes-Holmes, 2001). And therefore, we decided to use corresponding picture stimuli.…”

Examining the Utility of the Stimulus Pairing Observation Procedure With Preschool Children Learning a Second Language

“…SPOP has demonstrated efficacy in establishing skills such as derived fraction‐decimal relations in typically developing children (Leader & Barnes‐Holmes, 2001a). Results of studies comparing match to sample and SPOP in the establishment of derived relations have been inconsistent (Clayton & Hayes, 2004; Leader & Barnes‐Holmes, 2001b), suggesting that additional research is needed. The SPOP has the advantage of being straightforward and easy to implement.…”

Simple discrimination training and conditional discrimination response

“…On one hand, it has been found that humans perform Matching to Sample consistent with trainings in which conditional discriminations were not explicitly reinforced, either they were simple discriminations (Vaughan, 1988;Sidman, Wynne, McGuire & Barnes, 1989;Smeets, Barnes & Roche, 1997;Smeets, Barnes & Cullinan, 2000;Debert, Huziwara, Faggiani, Siomes de Mathis & McIlvane, 2009;Debert, Ma-tos & McIlvane, 2007) or respondent-type trainings (Leader, Barnes & Smeets, 1996Smeets, Leader & Barnes, 1997;Leader & Barnes-Holmes, 2001a, 2001bClayton & Hayes, 2004).…”