Training Intraverbal Naming to Establish Matching-to-Sample Performances

Abstract

The current study evaluated whether training intraverbal naming would be sufficient to establish visual-visual matching-to-sample (MTS) performances in college students. In the first experiment, we used a multiple-probe design across stimulus sets to assess whether six participants could match arbitrary visual stimuli (AB) after learning to tact their two experimentally defined classes (A' and B') and then intraverbally relate their names (i.e., BA' goes with B'^). All participants matched the stimuli accurately after training, as well as emitted the trained intraverbals. In the second experiment, we used a multiple baseline design across four participants to assess whether the same training would produce bi-directional intraverbals in the form of BB' goes with A',^and MTS performance consistent with symmetry (BA). All participants responded accurately during matching and intraverbal tests. Across both experiments, participants stated the trained intraverbals while performing the matching task. Results showed that MTS performance can be established solely by verbal behavior training.

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.…”

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

The effects of listener training on the development of analogical reasoning

“…The use of problem solving statements (e.g., “same goes with same”) by some of the participants is consistent with results obtained by Miguel et al () and previous research on bidirectional naming in which intraverbally related stimulus names may evoke correct listener responses during MTS tasks (Jennings & Miguel, ; Ma et al, ; Petursdottir, Carp, Peterson, & Lepper, ; Santos et al, ).…”

An evaluation of a visual–visual successive matching‐to‐sample procedure to establish equivalence classes in adults

“…Self‐reports from some participants in combination with their responding suggest that our instructions may have influenced the way participants learned baseline relations and how they performed during equivalence test trials. Previous studies have demonstrated that either instructions or participants' self‐generated verbal responses may play an important role in establishing conditional discriminations or responding in accordance with equivalence (Arntzen, ; Arntzen, Vaidya, & Halstadtro, ; Cullinan et al, ; Jennings & Miguel, ; Ma, Miguel, & Jennings, ; Pilgrim, Jackson, & Galizio, ; Santos, Ma, & Miguel, ). Prior to each task, our participants were instructed to touch the comparison if they thought it was “correct” and to not touch the comparison if they thought it was “incorrect.” Subsequent exposure to the reinforcement contingencies in AB/BC training may have established rules for “correct” responding (e.g., A1 always goes with B1 so, if presented with A1, then only touch B1 and vice versa) and these rules may have adversely affected participant behavior during transitivity tests.…”