Tactual Equivalence Class Formation and Tactual-to-Visual Cross-Modal Transfer

Belanich, James; Fields, Lanny

doi:10.1007/bf03395308

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In most of these experiments, the classes have been constructed of meaningless stimuli to minimize the effects of stimulus content on class formation. Most of the classes studied were composed of stimuli from visual, auditory and/or olfactory sensory modalities (e.g., Annette & Leslie, 1995;Belanich & Fields, 1999;Fienup & Dixon, 2006;Green, 1990;Hayes, Tilley, & Hayes, 19898, Sidman, 2009). When visual stimuli were the class members, they were usually abstract, and consisted of nonsense syllables such as 3-letter consonantvowel-consonant strings with no meaning in the lexicon (e.g., Moss-Lourenco & Fields, 2011;Plaud, 1995), symbols from an alphabet with which the participants were not familiar, such as Greek or Cyrillic letters (Arntzen, 2004;Fields, Arntzen, Nartey, & Eilifsen, 2012;Holth & Arntzen, 1998), or hard-to-name shapes (Bentall, Dickins, & Fox, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arbitrary conditional discriminative functions of meaningful stimuli and enhanced equivalence class formation

Nedelcu

Fields

Arntzen

2015

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Equivalence class formation by college students was influenced through the prior acquisition of conditional discriminative functions by one of the abstract stimuli (C) in the to-be-formed classes. Participants in the GR-0, GR-1, and GR-5 groups attempted to form classes under the simultaneous protocol, after mastering 0, 1, or 5 conditional relations between C and other abstract stimuli (V, W, X, Y, Z) that were not included in the to-be-formed classes (ABCDE). Participants in the GR-many group attempted to form classes that contained four abstract stimuli and one meaningful picture as the C stimulus. In the GR-0, GR-1, GR-5, and GR-many groups, classes were formed by 17, 25, 58, and 67% of participants, respectively. Thus, likelihood of class formation was enhanced by the prior formation of five C-based conditional relations (the GR-5 vs. GR-0 condition), or the inclusion of a meaningful stimulus as a class member (the GR-many vs. GR-0 condition). The GR-5 and GR-many conditions produced very similar yields, indicating that class formation was enhanced to a similar degree by including a meaningful stimulus or an abstract stimulus that had become a member of five conditional relations prior to equivalence class formation. Finally, the low and high yields produced by the GR-1 and GR-5 conditions showed that the class enhancement effect of the GR-5 condition was due to the number of conditional relations established during preliminary training and not to the sheer amount of reinforcement provided while learning these conditional relations. Class enhancement produced by meaningful stimuli, then, can be attributed to their acquired conditional discriminative functions as well as their discriminative, connotative, and denotative properties.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arbitrary conditional discriminative functions of meaningful stimuli and enhanced equivalence class formation

Nedelcu

Fields

Arntzen

2015

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sensory modality of the stimuli used as class members-for instance, visual (e.g., Fields, Arntzen, Nartey, & Eilifsen, 2012), tactile (e.g., Belanich & Fields, 1999), and gustatory (e.g., Hayes, Tilley, & Hayes, 1988)-has also been shown to influence the formation of equivalence classes. When visual stimuli were used as the class members, they consisted of abstract shapes (e.g., Sidman & Tailby, 1982) or meaningful pictures (e.g., Arntzen, 2004;Fields et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Training order and structural location of meaningful stimuli: Effects on equivalence class formation

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, equivalence class formation was influenced by the temporal point of inclusion of a meaningful stimulus when baseline relations were serially or sequentially trained, and much less so by the location of the meaningful stimulus in the nodal structure of the class. In Experiment 1, participants attempted to form three 3-node, 5-member classes (A→B→C→D→E) under the simultaneous protocol. After serially training the baseline relations AB, BC, CD, and DE, in that order, the emergence of all emergent relations was tested concurrently. In the A-as-PIC condition, Awas meaningful stimulus and B to E were meaningless stimulus, and 60 % of the participants formed classes. In addition, classes were formed by 40 %, 70 %, 40 %, and 20 % of the participants in the B-as-PIC, C-as-PIC, D-as-PIC, and E-as-PIC groups, respectively. Thus, the likelihood of class formation could have been influenced by the location of a meaningful stimulus in the class structure and/or by its order of introduction during training. In Experiment 2, we controlled for any effect of order of introduction by the concurrent training of all of the baseline relations. Regardless of the location of the meaningful stimulus, 0-20 % of participants formed classes. Thus, the temporal order of introducing a meaningful stimulus was the primary modulator of the class-enhancing property of meaningful stimuli, and not the location of the meaningful stimulus in the class structure.

show abstract

“…Stimulus equivalence has been demonstrated w ith both verbally competent people (Dugdale & Lowe, 2000), including adults and ty pically developing ch ildren (e.g., A rntzen & Vaidya, 2008;Lipkins, Hayes, & Hayes, 1993;Pilgrim, Chambers, & Galizio, 1995;Sidman & Tailby, 1982), and those with developmental disabilities or autism (Arntzen, Halstadtro, Bjerke, & Halstadtro, 2010;LeBlanc, Miguel, Cummings, Goldsmith, & Carr, 2003). It has also been demonstrated after training with different stimulus modalities such as olfactory (Annett & Leslie, 1995), haptic (Belanich & Fields, 1999), tactile (O'Leary & Bush, 1996), and gustatory (L. J. Hayes, Tilley, & Hayes, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%