Matching unrelated stimuli with same discriminative functions: training order effects

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

doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(02)00124-9

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies by Carpentier et al (2003) and by Serna and PerezGonzalez (2003) showed that the functions of contextual stimuli may not be acquired or transferred under certain conditions. The main goal of the present research was to further study the conditions necessary for acquiring contextual control of specific functions and for transferring this control to novel conditional discriminations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies, however, did not analyze the conditions under which such a process occurs. In contrast, the study by Carpentier et al (2003) included one condition in which the second-order conditional discrimination was taught before the first-order conditional discrimination. Although all 6 participants showed transfer of contextual stimulus functions in the original condition (i.e., when the participants learned the first-order conditional discriminations first) , only 4 of 6 participants showed transfer of contextual stimulus functions when they learned the second-order conditional discrimination first.…”

mentioning

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

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

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…In a similar vein, a recent study in our laboratory arranged simple successive discrimination contingencies in which sets of three stimuli were correlated with reinforcement for the same response and documented the development of equivalence relations among those stimuli in unreinforced probe trials (Vaidya, Maciver, & Eiliefsen, in prep). Other studies (de Rose et al 1988;Carpentier et al 2003) have similarly shown that three-term contingencies are sufficient to give rise to equivalence relations among stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Interactions Between Equivalence Relations and the Development of Analytic Units

Vaidya

Brackney

2014

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigated possible interactions between existing equivalence relations among stimuli and the acquisition of simple discriminations involving the same stimuli. During the first phase of Experiment 1, two adult humans learned two sets of six conditional relations among arbitrary visual stimuli designed to produce two independent sets of three, three-member equivalence classes (Set 1 and Set 2). Subjects whose performance met accuracy criteria on tests for equivalence relations proceeded to a second phase in which subjects were taught, via reinforcement, to make the same response to a cluster of three stimuli (e.g., response 1 in the presence of A1, B1, and C1). The clusters of three stimuli were initially consistent with documented equivalence relations for both Set 1 and Set 2 stimuli. In the second half of this phase, the contingencies were realigned such that the simple discriminations being established were consistent with documented equivalence relations for Set 1 stimuli but inconsistent for Set 2 stimuli. Results showed that the simple discriminations were acquired faster for Set 1 stimuli than for Set 2 stimuli. Experiment 2 introduced a third set of stimuli as a control set and systematically replicated Experiment 1 with four subjects. This study found that three of four subjects acquired simple discriminations faster when the cluster of stimuli were drawn from within equivalence classes rather than across equivalence classes. The development of equivalence relations with Set 3 stimuli constrained the utility of the control condition in this experiment. The results are best interpreted as suggesting that existing equivalence relations among stimuli can interact with the development of analytic units such as simple discriminations to either facilitate or retard their development.Sidman's most recent exposition of a theory of stimulus equivalence (1994, 2000) considerably expanded the scope and origins of stimulus equivalence relations relative to his earlier writings (cf. Sidman and Tailby 1982; Sidman 1986). In these early formulations, Sidman and his colleagues described equivalence relations emerging at the level of four-term contingencies of reinforcement and involving the reversal and recombination of the discriminative and conditional stimulus functions established during the baseline matching-to-sample training (cf. Sidman and Tailby 1982;. In contrast, Sidman's latest treatments (1994, 2000) suggest that equivalence relations are an outcome of reinforcement contingencies and involve all positive elements of the analytic unit, including the response and the reinforcer (Sidman 1994(Sidman , 2000. Specifically, Sidman (2000) proposes that reinforcement contingencies produce at least two outcomes -the development of the familiar units of analysis such as three-term simple discrimination or four-term conditional discrimination, and the development of equivalence relations. Unlike earlier formulations in which equivalence relations were limited to the third and fourth terms of a matc...

show abstract

Matching unrelated stimuli with same discriminative functions: training order effects

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 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

Interactions Between Equivalence Relations and the Development of Analytic Units

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About