Stimulus Class Formation and Stimulus—reinforcer Relations

Abstract

This study examined stimulus class membership established via stimulus-reinforcer relations. Mentally retarded subjects learned conditional discriminations with four two-member sets of visual stimuli (A, B, C, and D). On arbitrary-matching trials, they selected comparison stimuli B1 and B2 conditionally upon samples A1 and A2, respectively, and C1 and C2 conditionally upon B1 and B2, respectively. On identity-matching trials, they selected all stimuli as comparisons conditionally upon identical stimuli as samples. Throughout training, correct selections of A1, B1, C1, and D1 were followed by one reinforcer, R1, and those of A2, B2, C2, and D2 were followed by another, R2. Subsequent tests documented the formation of two four-member stimulus classes, A1-B1-C1-D1 and A2-B2-C2-D2. The class membership of the A, B, and C stimuli could have been based on equivalence relations that resulted from the arbitrary-matching training. D1 and D2 had never appeared on arbitrary-matching trials, however. Their class membership must have been based on relations with R1 and R2, respectively. Results thus confirm a previous finding that stimulus classes can be expanded via stimulus-reinforcer relations. They also define more precisely the potential nature of those classes and the conditions under which class membership can be established.

Consequências Específicas Arbitrárias Em Matching De Identidade São Efetivas Para O Estabelecimento De Classes De Equivalência?

“…Porém, os resultados obtidos nas tentativas de sonda AB, BA, AC, CA, BC e CB mostraram que as classes de equivalência A1B1C1, A2B2C2 e A3B3C3 não foram estabelecidas a partir do treino em MTS de identidade com as consequências específicas empregadas no Experimento 1. Esses dados contradizem praticamente todos os resultados apresentados em estudos prévios nos quais relações condicionais arbitrárias emergiram a partir de um treino com características semelhantes (Dube & McIlvane, 1995;Dube et al, 1987;Dube et al, 1989;Goyos, 2000;Joseph et al, 1997;Johnson et al, 2014;Minster et al, 2006;Schenk, 1994;Varella & de Souza, 2014).…”

“…Resultados semelhantes a esses foram observados em crianças com desenvolvimento típico (Goyos, 2000;Schenk, 1994), em crianças autistas (Varella & de Souza, 2014) e em estudos que utilizaram o procedimento de consequências específicas em delineamentos diferentes (Dube, McIlvane, Mackay, & Stoddard, 1987;Dube, McIlvane, Maguire, Mackay, & Stoddard, 1989;Schenk, 1994;Joseph, Overmeier, & Thompson, 1997;Johnson, Meleshkevich, & Dube, 2014;Minster, Jones, Elliffe, & Muthukumaraswamy, 2006).…”

“…Quando os experimentadores têm maior controle sobre as preferências dos participantes e podem programar a realização de sessões diárias e de curta duração, os reforçadores primários são uma alternativa conveniente (Dube & McIlvane, 1995;Dube et al, 1987;Dube et al, 1989;Joseph et al, 1997;Varella & de Souza, 2014).…”

Reversal Learning Set and Functional Equivalence in Children with and Without Autism

“…For example, it would be desirable to retain three-dimensionality of discriminative stimuli for this population, but it may not be necessary to use food or token reinforcers as the stimuli to be discriminated, thus avoiding potential problems of reinforcer preference. Another possible improvement in the procedures would be use of outcome-specific consequences to define the contingency classes (cf., Dube, Mcilvane, Mackay, & Stoddard 1987;Dube, Mcilvane, Maguire, Mackay, & Stoddard, 1989). That procedure was shown to be helpful by Kastak and colleagues (2001) in their work with sea lions; their subjects were able to demonstrate functional equivalence only when outcome-specific reinforcement was used.…”

Transfer of Relational Stimulus Control in Conditional Discriminations

“…Emergent relations among stimuli can occur with stimuli that share no common samples or comparisons but that have been associated with the same consequence (Dube, Mcllvane, Mackay, & Stoddard, 1987;Dube, Mcllvane, Maguire, Mackay, & Stoddard, 1989). In Dube et al's (1989) study, identity relations AlAl, BlBI, ClCl, and DlDl and arbitrary relations AlBl and BlCl were trained with a particular reinforcer; identity relations A2A2, B2B2, C2C2, and D2D2 and arbitrary relations A2B2 and B2C2 were trained with a different reinforcer.…”