Class Formation of Unrelated Stimuli with Same Discriminative Functions

Carpentier, Franck; Smeets, Paul M.; Barnes‐Holmes, Dermot

doi:10.1080/15021149.2002.11434200

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the present study are consistent with those from Carpentier et al (2002). They found less transfer when the contextual stimuli were introduced in the first phase than whBn the contextual stimuli were introduced after teaching the first-order conditional discriminations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Studies by Carpentier et al (2002) showed that when the X stimuli are introduced prior to the conditional discriminations, it is possible to get transfer of functions of contextual stimuli. TransfHr, however, is less likely than when the conditional discrimination is tau!~ht first.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies of Carpentier et al (2002), and Perez-Gonzalez and Serna (1993a, constituted demonstrations of a basic transfer process when contextual stimuli are presented with novel conditional discriminations. These studies, however, did not analyze the conditions under which such a process occurs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Control by Contextual Stimuli in Novel Second-Order Conditional Discriminations

Pérez-González

Martínez

2007

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eighteen undergraduates participated in studies designed to examine the factors that produce transfer of contextual functions to novel stimuli in second-order conditional discriminations. In Study 1, participants selected comparison B1 given sample A1 and comparison B2 given sample A2 in a matching-tCi-sample procedure. Contextual stimuli X1 or X2 were introduced next. In the presence of X1 , selections of B 1 given A 1 and selections of B2 given A2 were reinforced; in the presence of X2, selections of B2 given A 1 and selections of B1 given A2 were reinforced (the XAB relations). The participants then learned novel conditional discriminations with stimuli E and F. When we presented the contextual stimuli X1 and X2 with EF, all 3 participants selected the same and opposite comparisons, respectively, as those previously established in EF training. This performance demonstrated the transfer of functions of contextual stimuli to a conditional discrimination with novel stimuli. In Study 2, participants were exposed to the same teaching and testing conditions as in Study 1, except that stimuli X1 and X2 were introduced in a single phase. Of the 4 participants, 2 showed transfer to a novel conditional discrimination. In Study 3 the selections in the XAB task had no differential consequences . Study 4 replicated the conditions of Study 1, with the exception that the AB phase was not taught. Finally, in Study 1' > the EF phase was not taught. All participants failed to demonstrate contextual control of the novel conditional discrimination. These results demonstrated that a complete sequence of conditional-discrimination teaching plays an important role in the acquisition and transfer of contextual control to novel conditional discriminations. These results are relevant to our understanding of instructional control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Control by Contextual Stimuli in Novel Second-Order Conditional Discriminations

Pérez-González

Martínez

2007

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After being trained on conditional A-B and A-C discrimination tasks and on a simple O-discrimination task (01+/02-), most subjects (a) selected BC compounds with same-class elements in a BC discrimination test (e.g., B1C1+/B1C2-), and (b) matched BC compounds with other BC compounds and with unitary 0 stimuli of same discriminative functions (e.g., B1C1-B3C3, B1C2-B2C3; 01-B3C3, 02-B2C3) . Because (a) the BC-Face (Carpentier et aI., 2003b) and O-BC performances (Carpentier et aI., 2004) could have resulted only from matching same discriminative functions, and (b) previous studies have shown that adults and children readily relate stimuli to any other stimuli of same discriminative functions (Carpentier, Smeets, & Barnes-Holmes, 2002a, 2002c, 2003aPerez-Gonzalez, 1994;Perez-Gonzalez & Serna, 2003), it should be assumed that the BC-BC performances were based on the same process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching Derived Functionally-Same Stimulus Relations: Equivalence-Equivalence and Classical Analogies

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that, after being trained on A-B and A-C matching tasks, subjects match not only functionally-same Band C stimuli (stimulus equivalence), but also BC compounds with sameclass elements and BC compounds with different-class elements (equivalence-equivalence) . Similar performances are required in classical analogies (a : b :: c : d). Therefore, some researchers have argued that equivalence-equivalence can serve as a behavior analytic model for analogical reasoning. Recent studies, however, have shown that compounds with same-class elements and different-class elements have different discriminative (S+, S-) properties. Hence, matching of same discriminative functions may have occurred. The present study aimed to design an equivalence-equivalence test in which the designated correct performances cannot be attributed to a process other than matching functionally-same relations. In Experiment 1 , subjects were trained to relate X and Y stimuli to colors and X and l stimuli to forms. After equivalence was assessed (Y-Xl) , the subjects received an equivalence-equivalence test in which only compounds with same-class elements were used: an XY or Xl compound as sample and an XY and Xl compound as comparisons (e.g., X1Y1-X2Y2IX2Z2). All subjects passed the equivalenceequivalence test. However, as reported by 1 subject, and was later demonstrated in Experiment 2, these equivalence-equivalence tasks could be solved by matching functionally-same stimuli (e.g., Y1-color-Y2, hence Y1-Y2). Experiment 3 demonstrated that this problem also exists in classical analogy tasks. When given the analogy tasks used by Goswami and Brown (1990) , all subjects selected the correct dterm option on the basis of the b-term alone (equivalence) . In Experiment 4, the equivalence-equivalence test was further modified to permit differentiation of matching functionally-same relations from matching functionally-same stimuli. All 5 subjects readily matched functionally-same equivalence relations, thus evidenced equivalenceequivalence or analogical reasoning.Correspondence should be sent to Paul M. Smeets,

show abstract

“…This account, hereafter referred to as the 'matching same functions account', was supported by a recent study by Carpentier et al (2002b). After being trained on simple A and B discriminations (A1'//A2(/, B1'//B2(/), the subsequent J Á/ A training (J1 Á/A1, J2Á/A2) produced similar JÁ/B performances (J1 Á/B1, J2 Á/B2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Matching unrelated stimuli with same discriminative functions: training order effects

Carpentier¹,

Smeets²,

Barnes‐Holmes³

2003

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that after training simple discriminations (A1+/A2-, B1+/B2-), bringing these tasks under conditional control (J1-A1, J2-A2) leads to transfer of discriminative control (J1+/J2-) and to generalized matching on the basis of same discriminative functions (e.g. J1-B1, J2-B2). The same occurs when conditional discriminations are trained (D1-E1, D2-E2; F1-G1, F2-G2). When the subjects are then trained to demonstrate correct relations (D1-E1, D2-E2) when given X1 and to demonstrate incorrect relations when given X2 (XD-E), transfer of discriminative control (X1+/X2-) and generalized matching on the basis of same discriminative functions emerges (e.g. X1F1-G1, X2F1-G2). The present study investigated if these performances are dependent on the training and/or testing order. In Experiment 1, the lower-order contingency tasks were trained before the higher-order contingency tasks (A1+/A2-, B1+/B2- before J-A, and D-E, F-G before XD-E). Half the subjects received the J-B test before the more complex XF-G test (Condition A), while for the other subjects, this testing order was reversed (Condition B). Finally, all subjects received additional tests in which they were given the opportunity to demonstrate the discriminative properties of the J and X stimuli (J1+/J2-, X1+/X2-), and to match the A, J, and X stimuli with newly introduced stimuli of same discriminative properties (e.g. J1-POLITE, J2-RUDE). Experiment 2 was the same except that the training order was reversed (J-A before A1+/A2-, B1+/B2-, and XD-E before D-E, F-G). The results were affected by the training order but not by the testing order. Transfer of discriminative functions and generalized matching on the basis of same functions only occurred reliably when the lower-order contingency tasks were trained first. A stimulus-control account of the data is offered.

show abstract

Class Formation of Unrelated Stimuli with Same Discriminative Functions

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Control by Contextual Stimuli in Novel Second-Order Conditional Discriminations

Control by Contextual Stimuli in Novel Second-Order Conditional Discriminations

Matching Derived Functionally-Same Stimulus Relations: Equivalence-Equivalence and Classical Analogies

Matching unrelated stimuli with same discriminative functions: training order effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About