Training intraverbal naming to establish equivalence class performances

Abstract

The purpose of this three-experiment study was to evaluate whether performance consistent with the formation of equivalence classes could be established after training adults to tact and intraverbally relate the names of visual stimuli. Fourteen participants were exposed to tact training, listener testing, and intraverbal training (A'B' and B'C') prior to matching-to-sample (MTS) and intraverbal posttests presented in different sequences across experiments. All participants demonstrated emergent MTS and intraverbal relations consistent with equivalence class formation. More importantly, all participants emitted experimentally defined or self-generated tacts or intraverbally named the correct sample-comparison pairs at some point during posttests. These results are consistent with the intraverbal naming account (Horne & Lowe, 1996) in that participants who passed novel relations MTS tests also demonstrated emergence of corresponding intraverbal relations. However, verbal reports and latency data suggest that participants did not necessarily have to use intraverbal naming as a problem solving strategy continuously throughout MTS posttests. These results extended previous research by showing that verbal behavior training of baseline relations (A'B' and B'C') is sufficient to establish novel conditional relations consistent with equivalence class formation.

Training intraverbal bidirectional naming to establish generalized equivalence class performances

“…Overall, these results replicate findings from previous studies demonstrating that tact and intraverbal training can be utilized to establish equivalence classes, as well as novel intraverbal relations consistent with symmetry and transitivity (Ma et al, ; Santos et al, ). This training was also effective to develop generalized equivalence classes, with little or no remedial training necessary.…”

“…A nonparametric Friedman test of differences among repeated measures was conducted and rendered a Chi‐square value of 10.17 which was significant ( p < .05) for mean response latencies. Similar to Ma et al (), mean response latency for AB/BC (2.39 s) trials was longer than BA/CB (2.07 s) and AC/CA (1.92 s) trials across participants (range 1.68 to 2.57 s). It should be noted participants received AB/BC posttests first.…”

“…Results of this experiment support previous research evaluating the role of verbal behavior, more specifically intraverbal bidirectional naming (I‐BiN), on the emergence of equivalence classes (Ma et al, ; Santos et al, ). In prior experiments, tact and intraverbal training were effective in establishing responding consistent with the formation of three 3‐member visual equivalence classes.…”

“…While I‐BiN may have facilitated responding initially, as in previous experiments, the extent to which it facilitated responding throughout test exposure remains unclear. It has been suggested that I‐BiN may be useful only during the establishment of initial baseline relations, but it might not be necessary throughout testing (Ma et al, ). Similar to prior findings (Arntzen, ; Bentall, Dickins, & Fox, ; Ma et al, ), overall response latencies diminished with increased exposure.…”

“…Equivalence classes may not only be established by teaching common names to dissimilar stimuli (common bidirectional naming, C‐BiN), but also by teaching intraverbal relations among them (intraverbal bidirectional naming, I‐BiN). When stimuli are linked together through intraverbal training, such as “Cardinal goes with Virginia”, and “Virginia goes with dogwood,” participants may learn to treat them as members of the same equivalence class, as measured by both selection (i.e., MTS) and vocal (i.e., intraverbal) tests (e.g., Ma, Miguel, & Jennings, ; Petursdottir, Carp, Peterson, & Lepper, ; Santos, Ma, & Miguel, ). Thus, during MTS tests, participants may tact the sample (e.g., saying, “Dogwood”), the product of which would evoke an intraverbal (“Dogwood goes with Virginia.”), whose product would serve as a discriminative stimulus (S D ) for the selection of the correct comparison.…”