Function Transfer in Human Operant Experiments: The Role of Stimulus Pairings

Abstract

Although function transfer often has been studied in complex operant procedures (such as matching to sample), whether operant reinforcement actually produces function transfer in such settings has not been established. The present experiments, with high school students as subjects, suggest that stimulus pairings can promote function transfer in conditions that closely approximate those of matching to sample. In Experiment 1, the subjects showed transfer of operant responding from three geometric figures (C1, C2, C3) to three colored shapes (B1, B2, B3) when the latter were paired with the former. Experiment 2 involved two groups of subjects. In the matching group, subjects matched the colored shapes with the geometric figures; in the yoked group, the shapes were merely paired with the geometric figures, and the schedule of stimulus pairing was yoked to the performance of the subjects in the matching group. Both groups of subjects showed function transfer. Experiment 3 documented function transfer from C stimuli to B stimuli through indirect stimulus pairings (A-B, A-C). In Experiment 4, function transfer was obtained even though the subjects vocalized continuously during the pairing trials, presumably preventing covert verbalization that might mediate transfer effects. Our results are consistent with a Pavlovian account and raise difficulties for current operant theories of function transfer.

Stimuli with identical contextual functions taught independently become functionally equivalent

“…With regard to learning mechanisms, stimulus equivalence may result initially from associative processes, because the stimuli that become members of a class have been presented together (e.g., in the case of symmetry) or with a third stimulus (e.g., A1 is presented with B1 and B1 with C1, which results in the A1-C1 relation) (see arguments on this theoretical account by Minster, Elliffe, & Muthukumaraswamy, 2011;Tonneau, 2001;Tonneau, Arreola, & Martínez, 2006;Tonneau & González, 2004). However, results from the present study cannot be explained solely through stimulus associations because the X and Y stimuli were not paired or presented with a common stimulus.…”

Stimulus pairing training in children with autism spectrum disorder

“…As an alternative to MTS tasks, some studies suggest observation of stimuli that are successively paired to learn these stimulus relations (e.g., Leader, Barnes, & Smeets, 1996;Smeets, Leader, & Barnes, 1997;Tonneau & Gonzalez, 2004). In this procedure (called stimulus pairing training in the following sections), the learner does not need to choose one stimulus, so that there is no incorrect choice.…”

The interfering effect of emotional stimulus functions on stimulus equivalence class formation: implications for the understanding and treatment of anxiety

“…The present study was designed to improve and extend upon the Tyndall et al (2004) study and to help elucidate the complex relationship between functional equivalence and stimulus equivalence (see Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000;Fields, 2001;Hall, 2001;Markham & Markham, 2002;Minster, Jones, Eliffe, & Muthukamarasawmy, 2006;Tonneau, 2001;Tonneau & Gonzalez, 2004, Wirth & Chase, 2002. In this study, six nonsense syllables were directly paired with six aversive images and a further six nonsense syllables were paired directly with six neutral images to establish two respondent function stimulus classes, an Aversive Stimulus class and a Neutral Stimulus class.…”