A discrimination analysis of training-structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes.

Experiments designed to establish stimulus equivalence classes frequently produce differential outcomes that may be attributable to training structure, defined as the order and arrangement of baseline conditional discrimination training trials. Several possible explanations for these differences have been suggested. Here we develop a hypothesis based on an analysis of the simple simultaneous and successive discriminations embedded in conditional discrimination training and testing within each of the training structures that are typically used in stimulus equivalence experiments. Our analysis shows that only the comparison-as-node (many-to-one) structure presents all the simple discriminations in training that are subsequently required for consistently positive outcomes on all tests for the properties of equivalence. The sample-as-node (one-to-many) training structure does not present all the simple discriminations required for positive outcomes on either the symmetry or combined transitivity and symmetry (equivalence) tests. The linear-series training structure presents all the simple discriminations required for consistently positive outcomes on tests for symmetry, but not for symmetry and transitivity combined (equivalence) or transitivity alone. Further, the difference in the number of simple discriminations presented in comparison-as-node training versus the other training structures is larger when the intended class size is greater than three or the number of classes is larger than two. We discuss the relevance of this analysis to interpretations of stimulus equivalence research, as well as some methodological and theoretical implications.     

Naming in conditional discrimination and stimulus equivalence.

Using a matching-to-sample procedure, McIntire, Cleary, and Thompson (1987) taught monkeys the conditional relations A1-R1-A1-R1, A2-R2-A2-R2, A1-R1-B1-R1, A2-R2-B2-R2, B1-R1-C1-R1, and B2-R2-C2-R2, where the first and third terms in each relation refer to the sample and comparison stimuli, respectively, and the second and last terms refer to the emission of a distinctive pattern of responding. The subjects were then tested for the emergent relations A-C, C-A, B-A, C-B, and B-B, with the differential response produced by a given stimulus during training also emitted on test trials (e.g., A1-R1-C1-R1). The performances of both subjects were as accurate on the tested relations as they had been on the trained relations. The new relations were characterized as demonstrations of stimulus equivalence. However, the conditional discrimination literature shows that such training procedures generate control of comparison selection by the differential response patterns. Therefore, no emergent relations were demonstrated because all of the trained response-stimulus relations were preserved on test trials. This paper suggests that these procedures do not provide an appropriate analogy for the kind of emergent stimulus-stimulus relations exhibited by human subjects in equivalence studies and outlines a paradigm for assessing the relative influence of stimulus-stimulus and response-stimulus relations.     

Training sequence effects on emergent conditional discriminations: Replication and extension to selection-based training

We examined the replicability and generality of a previously reported training sequence effect on emergent conditional discriminations in the intraverbal naming task. In Experiment 1, a tact–intraverbal (TI) group learned first to vocally label 6 visual patterns and then to intraverbally relate pairs of verbal labels, whereas an intraverbal–tact (IT) group received the same training in the opposite sequence. Emergent conditional discriminations among pattern stimuli were assessed in match-to-sample (MTS) format. Experiment 2 was identical, except vocal tact and intraverbal training were replaced with selection-based training in which the verbal labels were text stimuli. Compared to the IT sequence, the TI sequence resulted in greater mean accuracy at test (Experiment 1), higher yields (Experiment 2), and shorter reaction times (Experiment 2). Experiment 2 data suggested the TI group's performance might be less dependent on intact intraverbal relations relative to the IT group, but related to participants' reports of visualization during intraverbal training. The results suggest the sequence effect is replicable and occurs in experimental preparations commonly used to study derived stimulus relations. They also provide novel support for the hypothesis that participant behavior during training alters sources of stimulus control available at test.     

High-probability stimulus control topographies with delayed S+ onset in a simultaneous discrimination procedure

Experimenters and teachers use discrimination learning procedures to encourage reliable attending to stimulus differences defined as relevant for their purposes. Put another way, the goal of discrimination training is to establish high-probability stimulus control topographies that are coherent with experimenter or teacher specifications. The present research was conducted to investigate a novel procedure for encouraging stimulus control topography coherence. Participants were 13 adolescents with severe intellectual handicaps. During an initial Condition A, all were exposed to a simultaneous discrimination procedure. Participants could select a form alternating with a black field (S+) or an identical form that did not alternate (S-). Accuracy scores were typically low, and there was little evidence of coherent stimulus control topographies. Subsequently, the procedure was changed. During Condition B, every trial initially presented two identical nonalternating S- forms (Trial State 1). If the participant made no selection for 5 s, one of the forms began to alternate with the black field, and he or she could make the S+/S- discrimination (Trial State 2). Selections during Trial State I prolonged the delay to Trial State 2 until there had been no response for 5 s. During Condition B, S+/S- discrimination accuracy scores improved rapidly and markedly for most participants. Reinstating Condition A often resulted in diminished accuracy scores. This study thus (a) demonstrated a novel procedure for encouraging stimulus control topography coherence and (b) provided support for the interpretation that intermediate accuracy scores may be due to different topographies of stimulus control that co-occur in the same discriminative baseline.     

Transfer of relational stimulus control in conditional discriminations.

Four adults were trained, using instructions and a matching-to-sample procedure, to select Stimulus B1 in the presence of Stimulus A1, B2 in the presence of A2, and B3 in the presence of A3 (the AB relations). Analogous PQ relations were trained. Afterwards, one stimulus in Set A and another stimulus in Set B appeared together as a sample, and novel Stimuli X1 and X2 were the comparisons. Responses to X1 were reinforced if the two stimuli in the sample had been related in the previous training (e.g., A1 and B1), and responses to X2 were reinforced if the two samples had not been related (e.g., A1 and B2). These were the ABX relations. In a test in which a stimulus of Set P and another of Set Q were the samples and X1 and X2 were the comparisons, 2 subjects selected X1 when the samples were P1 and Q1, P2 and Q2, and P3 and Q3, and selected X2 in the presence of the other six sample combinations (P1Q2, P1Q3, P2Q1, P2Q3, P3Q1, and P3Q2). Another subject showed the same responding after additional training. In the second experiment, 3 adults and an 11-year-old child were trained on AB, PQ, and ABX relations, and they showed the symmetrical relations BA and QP upon testing. Then all 4 of these subjects responded accurately to the PQX test. Results of Experiments 1 and 2 showed novel, consistent comparison selection based on the previously established relation between the two stimuli in the sample. In a third experiment, 3 of the subjects who had shown PQX relations were trained on EFX relations, with pairs of E and F stimuli as samples and X stimuli as comparisons. When the EF relations were tested, all 3 subjects consistently selected F1 in the presence of E1, F2 in the presence of E2, and F3 in the presence of E3 from the first trial. The results of Experiment 3 showed novel stimulus relations after training with a more complex conditional discrimination format.     

Compound stimuli in emergent stimulus relations: Extending the scope of stimulus equivalence

Three experiments were conducted to investigate stimulus relations that might emerge when college students are taught relations between compound sample stimuli and unitary comparison stimuli using match-to-sample procedures. In Experiment 1, subjects were taught nine AB-C stimulus relations, then tested for the emergence of 18 AC-B and BC-A relations. All subjects showed the emergence of all tested relations. Twelve subjects participated in Experiment 2. Six subjects were taught nine AB-C relations and were then tested for symmetrical (C-AB) relations. Six subjects were taught nine AB-C and three C-D relations and were then tested for nine AB-D (transitive) relations. Five of 6 subjects demonstrated the emergence of symmetrical relations, and 6 subjects showed the emergence of transitivity. In Experiment 3, 5 college students were taught nine AB-C and three C-D relations and were then tested for nine equivalence (D-AB) relations and 18 AD-B and BD-A relations. Three subjects demonstrated all tested relations. One subject demonstrated the AD-B and BD-A relations but not the D-AB relations. One subject did not respond systematically during testing. The results of these experiments extend stimulus equivalence research to more complex cases.     

Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures

Two eight-member equivalence classes of visual stimuli were established during three phases of a training program. In Phase 1, two training arrangements were compared. In one, 3 subjects were taught on different trials to select from a single pair of comparison stimuli (A1, A2) in response to eight sample stimuli that were trained in pairs (B1, B2; C1, C2; D1, D2; E1, E2). In the second arrangement, subjects were taught to select from four pairs of comparisons (B1, B2; C1, C2; D3, D2; E2, E2) in response to two samples (A1, A2). Training with the single pair of comparison stimuli resulted in the development of equivalence relations (B1C1, B2C2, D1B1, D2B2, B1E1, B2E2, C1D1, C2D2, C1E1, C2E2, D1E1, D2E2, and their reciprocals) between the sample stimuli without direct training of these relations. In the other training arrangement, these relations among the comparison stimuli developed in the performance of 1 subject only. In Phase 2, three new pairs of stimuli (F1, F2; G1, G2; H1, H2) were substituted for three of the original pairs (B1, B2; C1, C2; D1, D2) and the training arrangements for the groups were reversed. Following training, the performances that showed equivalence relations on the probes in the first phase also showed equivalence relations in the second phase. If such relations did not develop in the first phase, they did not do so in the second phase. In Phase 3, relations between stimuli across the two previous phases (e.g., B1F1, B2F2, B1G1, B2H2, C1F1, etc.) were investigated. The 4 subjects whose performances showed the development of these relations were taught to select one stimulus from each class (E1 and E2) in response to a verbal label (I1 and I2) and then were tested to see if the verbal label controlled responding to the remaining members of the class (e.g., I1A1, I2A2, I1B1, I2B2, etc.). For 3 subjects, this generalized control occurred; for the 4th, generalization occurred only after verbal training with a second pair of visual stimuli (F1 and F2). In retests several months later, these auditory-visual relations were found to be intact or, if not, were recovered without direct training.     

Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations.

In a conditional discrimination procedure, samples appeared in a center key, and comparisons appeared in two of four outer keys. The location of comparison keys varied from trial to trial. Separate learning curves for each of the six possible pairs of comparison keys were plotted in a signal-detection space, revealing different patterns of progress on each pair. Also, when learned conditional discriminations were disrupted, pairs of keys differed in their patterns of disruption. Varying the location of comparison stimuli among six different pairs of keys had not eliminated key position as a controlling aspect of the stimuli. The variations simply increased the number of stimulus compounds--key position and experimental stimuli--that the subject learned. Plotting conditional-discrimination learning curves in a signal-detection space reveals relations among hits, false alarms, accuracy, and comparison preference that help to define a subject's progress.     

Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding.

Subjects' responses to nonarbitrary stimulus relations of sameness, oppositeness, or difference were brought under contextual control. In the presence of the SAME context, selecting the same comparison as the sample was reinforced. In the presence of the OPPOSITE context, selecting a comparison as far from the sample as possible on the physical dimension defined by the set of comparisons was reinforced. Given the DIFFERENT context, selecting any comparison other than the sample was reinforced. Subjects were then exposed to arbitrary matching-to-sample training in the presence of these same contextual cues. Some subjects received training using the SAME and OPPOSITE contexts, others received SAME and DIFFERENT, and others received SAME, OPPOSITE, and DIFFERENT. The stimulus networks established allowed testing for a wide variety of derived relations. In two experiments it was shown that derived performances were consistent with relational responding brought to bear by the contextual cues. In contexts relevant to the relation of sameness, stimulus equivalence emerged. Other kinds of relational networks emerged in the other contexts. Arbitrarily applicable relational responding may give rise to a very wide variety of derived stimulus relations. The kinds of performances seen in stimulus equivalence do not appear to be unique.     

Testing for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of language-trained chimpanzees

If subjects are taught to match Stimulus A to B and then, without further training, match B to A, they have passed a test of symmetry. It has been suggested that non-humans' lack of success on symmetry tests might be overcome by giving them a history of symmetry exemplar training, that is, by directly teaching a large number of conditional relations (e.g., AB, CD, EF,...) and also directly training the "reverse" of these relations (e.g., BA, DC, FE,...). The chimpanzee subjects of the present study, Sherman, Austin, and Lana, had already received extensive symmetry exemplar training as a result of attempts to teach a selection-based language system of lexigrams. The present study systematically subjected 2 of these chimps (Sherman and Lana), for the first time, to standard symmetry tests in controlled conditions. Both chimps failed the tests, even when their correct responses on test trials were reinforced. The findings do not support the exemplar training hypothesis, and cast doubt upon whether the chimps can pass tests of stimulus equivalence.     

A note on the measurement of conditional discrimination.

An analysis of some extreme forms of stimulus control that a simple conditional-discrimination procedure can generate leads to the conclusion that accuracy does not provide an orderly scale of measurement. Dependence on accuracy to evaluate a conditional discrimination, particularly at intermediate levels of accuracy, can generate erroneous conclusions about the extent to which the controlling relations are those specified by the experimenter.     

Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures

In conditional-discrimination procedures with three sets of stimuli, A, B, and C, three stimuli per set (A1A2A3, B1B2B3, and C1C2C3), subjects (children and adults) learned to select Set-B and Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-A samples (A1B1, A1C1, A2B2, A2C2, A3B3, A3C3). If the conditional-discrimination procedures also generated equivalence relations, three 3-member stimulus classes would be demonstrable, A1B1C1, A2B2C2, and A3B3C3. In addition to these three sets, the present experiments used three other sets of stimuli--D, E, and F. The subjects learned to select Set-E and Set-F comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples (D1E1, D1F1, D2E2, D2F2, D3E3, D3F3). This established a second group of three 3-member stimulus classes, D1E1F1, D2E2F2, and D3E3F3. In all, two groups of three 3-member classes were established by teaching subjects 12 conditional discriminations. The two groups of 3-member classes were then combined (successfully for 5 of 8 subjects) into a single group of three 6-member classes by teaching the subjects three more conditional relations (E1C1, E2C2, and E3C3). With three other children, enlarging the classes one member at a time also produced 6-member classes. As a consequence of class formation, 60 untrained conditional relations emerged from 15 that had been explicitly taught. Six of the subjects also proved capable of naming the stimuli consistently in accord with their class membership, but two subjects demonstrated class formation even in the absence of consistent naming.     

Equivalence classes in individuals with minimal verbal repertoires

Studies from two different laboratories tested for equivalence classes in individuals with severe mental retardation and minimal verbal repertoires. In the first study, 3 individuals learned several matching-to-sample performances: matching picture comparison stimuli to dictated-word sample stimuli (AB), matching those same pictures to printed letter samples (CB), and also matching the pictures to nonrepresentative forms (DB). On subsequent tests, all individuals immediately displayed Emergent Relations AC, AD, BC, BD, CD, and DC, together constituting a positive demonstration of equivalence (as defined by Sidman). The second study obtained a positive equivalence test outcome in 1 of 2 individuals with similarly minimal verbal repertoires. Taken together, these studies call into question previous assertions that equivalence classes are demonstrable only in individuals with well-developed language repertoires.     

A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children.

Procedures for generating arbitrary matching-to-sample performances may generate only conditional discriminations. Rational grounds for this distinction are proposed, based on the properties that any equivalence relation must possess. Empirical tests are described for determining whether subjects trained on conditional discriminations are also engaged in true matching to sample. A series of studies than leads to the conclusion that proof of true matching to sample by monkeys, pigeons, or baboons is yet to be provided. Whether the absence of such proof reflects experiential factors or species-defined limitations is not presently clear.     

Baseline training sequence affects speed of emergent conditional discriminations

We examined the effects of baseline training sequence on the emergence of conditional discriminations in an intraverbal naming task. Thirty‐two college students were randomly assigned to two groups. The tact‐intraverbal (TI) group first learned to vocally tact eight visual stimuli using a unique verbal label for each stimulus, and then to intraverbally relate four pairs of verbal labels. The intraverbal‐tact (IT) group received the same training but in the opposite sequence. Both groups then received a match‐to‐sample test involving the visual stimuli alone. On average, the TI group had significantly shorter reaction times than the IT group throughout all four test blocks, even when controlling for intraverbal retention, which was lower in the IT group. Accuracy on the MTS test did not differ significantly between groups when controlling for intraverbal retention. However, MTS accuracy and intraverbal retention were strongly correlated in the IT group but uncorrelated in the TI group. We suggest the effect of training sequence reflects different sources of stimulus control available to subjects in different groups when confronted with the novel MTS trials.     

Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: Control by negative stimuli

Three adult subjects were taught the following two-sample, two-comparison conditional discriminations (each sample is shown with its positive and negative comparison, in that order): A1-B1B2, A2-B2B1; B1-C1C2, B2-C2C1; and C1-D1D2, C2-D2D1. A teaching procedure was designed to encourage control by negative comparisons. Subjects were then tested for emergent performances that would indicate whether the baseline conditional discriminations were reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. The tests documented the emergence of two classes of equivalent stimuli: A1, B2, C1, D2 and A2, B1, C2, D1. These were the classes to be expected if the negative comparisons were the controlling comparisons in the baseline conditional discriminations. The negative comparisons, however, were not the comparisons that subjects were recorded as having chosen in the baseline conditional discriminations. Differential test results confirmed predictions arising from a stimulus-control analysis: In reflexivity tests (AA, BB, CC, DD), subjects chose comparisons that differed from the sample; one-node transitivity (AC, BD) and "equivalence" (CA, DB) tests also yielded results that were the opposite of those to be expected from control by positive comparisons; symmetry tests (BA, CB, DC), two-node transitivity (AD) tests, and two-node "equivalence" (DA) tests yielded results that were to be expected from control by either positive or negative comparisons.     

Reflections on stimulus control

The topic of stimulus control is too broad and complex to be traceable here. It would probably take a two-semester course to cover just the highlights of that field's evolution. The more restricted topic of equivalence relations has itself become so broad that even an introductory summary requires more time than we have available. An examination of relations between equivalence and the more general topic of stimulus control, however, may reveal characteristics of both the larger and the more limited field that have not been generally discussed. Consideration of these features may in turn foster future developments within each area. I speak, of course, about aspects of stimulus control that my own experiences have made salient to me; others would surely emphasize different characteristics of the field. It is my hope that cooperative interactions among researchers and theorists who approach stimulus control from different directions will become more common than is currently typical.     

Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development

In a conditional discrimination, 6 college students arranged six Cyrillic letters into groups of three based upon which of two additional Cyrillic letters (contextual stimuli) was present. All subjects demonstrated symmetry and transitivity within each class of equivalent stimuli. In a second conditional discrimination, two more Cyrillic letters were related to each contextual stimulus. Testing of symmetrical and transitive relations between the original contextual stimulus and the two new ones confirmed the development of two three-member classes of contextual stimuli. Subsequent tests demonstrated that the new contextual stimuli controlled the previously trained sample-comparison relations for all subjects.     

On the failure and facilitation of conditional discrimination.

Pigeons acquired a conditional discrimination in an autoshaping procedure in which certain stimulus combinations (form plus color) were followed by food, whereas others were not followed by food. Although the discrimination normally was acquired quickly, it was completely prevented when the color elements of the stimulus compounds were presented during the intertrial intervals preceding the trials in which both stimulus elements were available. This failure of discrimination was then prevented by having the colors serve as houselights rather than being localized on the response key and by pretraining procedures in which the colors were utilized in simpler discriminations. The results suggest that stimulus salience plays a critical role in determining whether conditional discriminations will be acquired, as the effects of all of the different operations could be understood in terms of increasing or decreasing the salience of the color elements, above or below some threshold value.