Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with same and opposite relational frames

Research on the emergence of human avoidance behavior in the absence of direct contact with an aversive event is somewhat limited. Consistent with work on derived relational responding, the present study sought to investigate the transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with the relational frames of Same and Opposite. Participants were first exposed to nonarbitrary and arbitrary relational training and testing in order to establish Same and Opposite relations among arbitrary stimuli. The training tasks were; Same-A1-B1, Same-A1-C1, Opposite-A1-B2, Opposite-A1-C2. Next, all possible combinatorially entailed (i.e., B-C and C-B) relations were tested. During the avoidance-conditioning phase, one stimulus (B1) from the relational network signaled a simple avoidance response that cancelled a scheduled presentation of an aversive image and sound. All but one of the participants who met the criteria for conditioned avoidance also demonstrated derived avoidance by emitting the avoidance response in the presence of C1 and the nonavoidance response in the presence of C2. Control participants who were not exposed to relational training and testing did not show derived avoidance. Implications of the findings for understanding clinically significant avoidance behavior are discussed.     

The transformation of consequential functions in accordance with the relational frames of more-than and less-than

Across three experiments, the transformation of consequential functions in accordance with a seven-member relational network (A-B-C-D-E-F-G) was investigated. In this network, the relational rankings ranged from A, ranked the least, to G, ranked the most. In the first phase, contextual cues for more-than and less-than were established by training participants across multiple exemplars to select comparisons containing larger quantities in the presence of the former cue, and fewer quantities in the presence of the latter cue. Participants then were trained in six conditional discriminations (i.e., AD, F>E, and G>F) with the contextual cues as samples and nonsense words as comparisons, and all possible derived relations were tested (e.g., B相似文献   

A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than

In Experiment 1, 2 experimental subjects were given pretraining of nonarbitrary relations that brought their responses under the control of four contextual stimuli; same, opposite, more than, and less than. One control subject was not exposed to this pretraining. The 2 pretrained subjects and the 3rd nonpretrained subject then received training in six arbitrary relations, the following four relations being the most critical: same/A1-B1, same/A1-C1, less than/A1-B2, more than/A1-C2. All 3 subjects were then tested for seven derived relations, the following three relations being the most important: same/B1-C1, more than/B1-C2, less than/B1-B2. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the derived relations. One of the stimuli (B1) from the relational network and two novel stimuli (X1 and X2) were then used to train three different self-discrimination responses on three complex schedules of reinforcement. That is, all 3 subjects were trained to pick X1 if they had not emitted a response, to pick B1 if they had emitted one response only, and to pick X2 if they had emitted two responses only. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the predicted transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the relations of sameness, more than, and less than (i.e., no response, pick B2; one response only, pick C1; and two responses only, pick C2). In Experiment 2, 2 new subjects were employed, and the arbitrary relational training and testing phases were modified to control for a procedural artifact that may have contributed to the results of the first experiment. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1. The pattern of results support the utility of a relational frames approach to understanding derived stimulus relations.     

Analysis of apparent demonstrations of responding in accordance with relational frames of sameness and opposition

We evaluated whether contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence and responding by exclusion can explain the outcomes of relational frame theory (RFT) studies on sameness and opposition relations. We trained nine college students to maintain and reverse conditional discriminations with X1 and X2 as contextual stimuli. In Experiment 1, X1 and X2 controlled derived stimulus relations (DSR) analogous to those controlled by Same and Opposite in RFT studies. These results can be explained by at least two hypotheses: X1 and X2 were cues for equivalence and nonequivalence and responding by exclusion, or for sameness and opposition. In Experiment 2, X1 and X2 controlled DSR predicted by the hypothesis that they were cues for equivalence and nonequivalence and responding by exclusion, and not predicted by the hypothesis that they were cues for sameness and opposition. The results of Experiment 2 and the functional equivalence of X1 and X2 with Same and Opposite in Experiment 1 suggest that Same and Opposite were cues for equivalence and nonequivalence and responding by exclusion in RFT studies.     

Understanding complex behavior: the transformation of stimulus functions

The transformation of stimulus functions is said to occur when the functions of one stimulus alter or transform the functions of another stimulus in accordance with the derived relation between the two, without additional training. This effect has been demonstrated with a number of derived stimulus relations, behavioral functions, experimental preparations, and subject populations. The present paper reviews much of the existing research on the transformation of stimulus functions and outlines a number of important methodological and conceptual issues that warrant further attention. We conclude by advocating the adoption of the generic terminology of relational frame theory to describe both the derived transformation of stimulus functions and relational responding more generally.     

The transfer of Crel contextual control (same,opposite, less than,more than) through equivalence relations

According to Relational Frame Theory (RFT) C_rel denotes a contextual stimulus that controls a particular type of relational response (sameness, opposition, comparative, temporal, hierarchical etc.) in a given situation. Previous studies suggest that contextual functions may be indirectly acquired via transfer of function. The present study investigated the transfer of C_rel contextual control through equivalence relations. Experiment 1 evaluated the transfer of C_rel contextual functions for relational responses based on sameness and opposition. Experiment 2 extended these findings by evaluating transfer of function using comparative C_rel stimuli. Both experiments followed a similar sequence of phases. First, abstract forms were established as C_rel stimuli via multiple exemplar training (Phase 1). The contextual cues were then applied to establish arbitrary relations among nonsense words and to test derived relations (Phase 2). After that, equivalence relations involving the original C_rel stimuli and other abstract forms were trained and tested (Phase 3). Transfer of function was evaluated by replacing the directly established C_rel stimuli with their equivalent stimuli in the former experimental tasks (Phases 1 and 2). Results from both experiments suggest that C_rel contextual control may be extended via equivalence relations, allowing other arbitrarily related stimuli to indirectly acquire C_rel functions and regulate behavior by evoking appropriate relational responses in the presence of both previously known and novel stimuli.     

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.     

Constructing Relational Sentences: Establishing Arbitrarily AppliCable Comparative Relations with the Relational Completion Procedure

The present study examined the effectiveness of the Relational Completion Procedure (RCP) in establishing arbitrarily applicable comparative relations after training with either linear (Experiment 1) or non-linear (Experiment 2) arbitrary relations. Linear relations were those presented in a sequential order (i.e., A-B, B-C, C-D, etc.), while nonlinear relations were presented in a nonsequential order (i.e., C-D, B-C, A-B, etc.). After nonarbitrary relational training and testing to establish the contextual functions of MORE THAN and LESS THAN, adults underwent constructed-response nonarbitrary relational training and testing with physically dissimilar stimuli in which they were required to “complete” relational sentences in the presence of the cues. Next, during arbitrary relational training with abstract stimuli, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training groups: All-More (E > D, D > C., C > B, and B > A), All-Less (A < B, B < C., C < D, and D < E), and Less-More (A < B, B < C., D > C., and E > D). Finally, during arbitrary relational testing, probes for mutually entailed relations were followed by probes for 1-and 2-node combinatorially entailed relations. The yield, or percentage of participants passing, was 83% in Experiment 1 and 91.6% in Experiment 2. Our findings demonstrate that the RCP was successful in establishing arbitrarily applicable comparative relations with adults regardless of the order in which the arbitrary relational training trials were presented.

     

Arbitrarily applicable spatial relational responding

Spatial reasoning, where novel spatial relationships are inferred based on trained relationships, can be conceptualized as arbitrarily applicable spatial relational responding. Here, we conducted two experiments to develop and validate, for the first time, a laboratory procedure to establish arbitrarily applicable spatial relational responding in adult humans. In Experiment 1, participants were trained on nonarbitrary spatial relational tasks designed to establish contextual cues for left of, right of, above, and below. Contextual cues were then used to train a series of arbitrary spatial relations involving four abstract shapes. Following training in a subset of arbitrary relations (A is left of B, B is above C, C is right of D), subsequent testing examined the emergence of untrained spatial relations (B is right of A, C is below B, D is left of C, D is below A and A is above D). When absent in initial tests, spatial relational responding was facilitated by a remedial training procedure incorporating nonarbitrary relational guidance. Participants showed patterns of spatial relational responding consistent with test relations. In Experiment 2, a variant reversal design yielded predictable, reversed spatial relational responses. Overall, the present procedures represent the first empirical demonstration of arbitrarily applicable spatial relational responding and thus, arguably, the first functional analytic model of spatial reasoning.     

New knowledge derived from learned knowledge: functional-anatomic correlates of stimulus equivalence

Forming new knowledge based on knowledge established through prior learning is a central feature of higher cognition that is captured in research on stimulus equivalence (SE). Numerous SE investigations show that reinforcing behavior under control of distinct sets of arbitrary conditional relations gives rise to stimulus control by new, derived relations. This investigation examined whether frontal-subcortical and frontal-parietal networks known to support reinforced conditional relations also support derived conditional relations. Twelve adult subjects completed matching-to-sample (MTS) training with correct/wrong feedback to establish four trained conditional relations within two distinct, three-member stimulus classes: (1) A1-->B1, B1-->C1 and (2) A2-->B2, B2-->C2. Afterwards, functional neuroimaging was performed when MTS trials were presented involving matching two identical circles (a sensorimotor control condition), trained relations (A-->B, B-->C), and derived relations: symmetry (B-->A, C-->B), transitivity (A-->C), and equivalence (C-->A). Conditional responding to trained and derived relations was similarly correlated with bilateral activation in the targeted networks. Comparing trained to derived relations, however, highlighted greater activation in several prefrontal regions, the caudate, thalamus, and putamen, which may represent the effects of extended training or feedback present during imaging. Each derived relation also evidenced a unique activation pattern. Collectively, the findings extend the role of frontal-subcortical and frontal-parietal networks to derived conditional relations and suggest that regional involvement varies with the type of derived conditional relation.     

Function transformation without reinforcement

In studies of function transformation, participants initially are taught to match stimuli in the presence of a contextual cue, X; the stimuli to be matched bear some formal relation to each other, for example, a relation of opposition or difference. In a second phase, the participants are taught to match arbitrary stimuli (say, A and B) in the presence of X. In a final test, A often displays behavioral functions that differ from those of B, and can be predicted from the nature of the relation associated with X in the initial training phase. Here we report function-transformation effects in the absence of selection responses and of their reinforcers. In three experiments with college students, exposure to relations of difference or identity modified the responses given to later stimuli. In Experiment 1, responses to a test stimulus A varied depending on preexposure to pairs of colors that were distinct from A but exemplified relations of difference or identity. In Experiment 2, a stimulus A acquired distinct functions, depending on its previous pairing with a contextual cue X that had itself been paired with identity or difference among colors. Experiment 3 confirmed the results of Experiment 2 with a modified design. Our data are consistent with the notion that relations of identity or difference can serve as stimuli for Pavlovian processes, and, in compound with other cues, produce apparent function-transformation effects.     

Equivalence class analysis of responding consistent with the relational frame of opposition

We replicated and extended studies showing that contextual cues for matching stimuli from 2 separate equivalence classes control the same derived relations as contextual cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. We conducted 2 experiments with 6 college students. In Phase 1, they received training in a conditional discrimination AB. Then, they received training for maintaining AB with X1 as context, and for reversing the sample–comparison relations of AB, with X2. In Phase 2, X1 functioned as context for matching same-class stimuli, and X2 functioned as context for matching separate-class stimuli. In Phase 3, X2 controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. This functional equivalence may suggest that X2 functioned as a cue for opposition frames. In Phase 4, participants matched different stimuli with X2 as context, instead of matching most different (opposite) stimuli. In addition, Different, a cue for matching different stimuli, controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as X2. These results are incompatible with X2 being a cue for opposition frames. Contextual control over equivalence and responding by exclusion can explain these outcomes. The implications of these findings for RFT studies on opposition frames are discussed.     

Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli

In three experiments, match-to-sample procedures were used with undergraduates to establish arbitrary relational functions for three abstract visual stimuli. In the presence of samples A, B, and C, participants were trained to select the smallest, middle, and largest member, respectively, of a series of three-comparison arrays. In Experiment 1, the B (choose middle) stimulus was then used to train a steady rate of keyboard pressing before the A (choose smallest) and the C (choose largest) stimuli were presented. Participants pressed slower to A and faster to C than to B. Then B was paired with mild shock in a Pavlovian procedure with skin conductance change as the dependent variable. When presented with A and C, 6 of 8 experimental participants showed smaller skin conductance changes to A and larger skin conductance changes to C than to B. In Experiment 2, A was then used as a sample in a match-to-sample procedure to establish an arbitrary size ranking among four same-sized colored circle comparisons. One of the middle circles was then used to establish a steady rate of pressing before the other circles were presented. Five of 6 participants responded slower to the "smaller" circle and faster to the "larger" circle than they did to the "middle" circle. In Experiment 3, A, B, and C were then presented on a series of test trials requiring participants to pick the comparison that was less than, greater than, or equal to the sample. Novel stimuli were included on some trials. Results indicated that the relational training procedures produced derived relations among the stimuli used in training and that these allowed correct inferences of relative size ranking among novel stimuli.     

Contextual control of equivalence-based transformation of functions

The transformation of functions refers to the untrained acquisition of stimulus functions among members of stimulus equivalence classes or relational frames. Although it is widely assumed that contextual control over the transformation of fuctions must exist, this has not yet been conclusively demonstrated in laboratory studies. Four experiments are reported in which (a) stimulus equivalence classes were established, (b) a conditional stimulus function was trained for one member of each of the classes, and (c) multiple-exemplar procedures were used to train and test for contextual control over the transformation of the stimulus function within the classes and to assess whether it generalized to new equivalence classes. Although a significant amount of training was required, the procedures ultimately resulted in the contextual control of function transformation for 9 of 10 participants and generalized contextual control for 4 of 5 participants.     

Establishing arbitrary comparative relations and referential transformations of stimulus function in individuals with autism

Relational Frame Theory posits that complex language develops through arbitrarily applicable relational networks, with potential implications for individuals with autism. Responding relationally based on comparison occurs when participants respond to any number of comparative properties, such as “bigger” or “faster.” Experiment 1 established two 3-member comparative networks, in which a stimulus A was conditioned as “bigger” or “faster” than a stimulus B, and the stimulus B was conditioned as “bigger” or “faster” than a stimulus C in 2 children with autism. Both participants met the mastery criterion for the trained relations and demonstrated the emergence of the untrained combinatorially entailed A–C and C–A relations. The participants could also match the arbitrary A stimuli with larger or faster objects and the C stimuli with smaller or slower objects. The results were replicated in Experiment 2 with the same participants, where a 5-member relational network was established for the bigger/smaller relation.     

Contextual control by function and form of transfer of functions

This study investigated conditions leading to contextual control by stimulus topography over transfer of functions. Three 4-member stimulus equivalence classes, each consisting of four (A, B, C, D) topographically distinct visual stimuli, were established for 5 college students. Across classes, designated A stimuli were open-ended linear figures, B stimuli were circular, C stimuli three-sided, and D stimuli four-sided. Three different computer tasks then were trained with the B stimuli. Differential reinforcement and punishment procedures were then used to establish control over function transfer by the topography of the class members. For Task 1, function transfer, responding to C and D stimuli as subjects had to B stimuli, was reinforced. For Task 2, function transfer was reinforced for C stimuli but punished for D stimuli. For Task 3, function transfer was punished for both C and D stimuli. New equivalence classes were then established and tests for generalized contextual control were presented. All 5 subjects showed generalized contextual control of transfer of functions by stimulus topography. Implications of contextual control over function transfer in natural settings are discussed.     

Equivalence relations and the contextual control of multiple derived stimulus functions

Contextual control is a key aspect in equivalence research to support the claim that stimuli may have multiple functions or symbols may have multiple meanings. The present study investigated the contextual control of multiple derived stimulus functions in two experiments. In Experiment 1, equivalence classes were formed and one stimulus set from each class was used to establish two different functions: one via positive reinforcement (key-pressing) and another via negative reinforcement (button clicking), both under contextual control of two different background colors. Later, other stimuli from the equivalence class were presented on those background colors and contextual control of multiple derived stimulus functions was assessed. Experiment 2 added a third background in which no programmed response was reinforced, that is, responses were extinguished. Transfer-of-function tests revealed contextual control of three different functions, including derived extinction. Implications for equivalence relations as a behavior-analytical model of symbolic functioning are discussed.     

Producing and Recognizing Analogical Relations

Analogical reasoning is an important component of intelligent behavior, and a key test of any approach to human language and cognition. Only a limited amount of empirical work has been conducted from a behavior analytic point of view, most of that within Relational Frame Theory (RFT), which views analogy as a matter of deriving relations among relations. The present series of four studies expands previous work by exploring the applicability of this model of analogy to topography-based rather than merely selection-based responses and by extending the work into additional relations, including nonsymmetrical ones. In each of the four studies participants pretrained in contextual control over nonarbitrary stimulus relations of sameness and opposition, or of sameness, smaller than, and larger than, learned arbitrary stimulus relations in the presence of these relational cues and derived analogies involving directly trained relations and derived relations of mutual and combinatorial entailment, measured using a variety of productive and selection-based measures. In Experiment 1 participants successfully recognized analogies among stimulus networks containing same and opposite relations; in Experiment 2 analogy was successfully used to extend derived relations to pairs of novel stimuli; in Experiment 3 the procedure used in Experiment 1 was extended to nonsymmetrical comparative relations; in Experiment 4 the procedure used in Experiment 2 was extended to nonsymmetrical comparative relations. Although not every participant showed the effects predicted, overall the procedures occasioned relational responses consistent with an RFT account that have not yet been demonstrated in a behavior-analytic laboratory setting, including productive responding on the basis of analogies.     

The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence relations

The purpose of this study was to examine the transfer of consequential (reinforcement and punishment) functions through equivalence relations. In Experiment 1, 9 subjects acquired three three-member equivalence classes through matching-to-sample training using arbitrary visual forms. Comparison stimuli were then given conditioned reinforcement or punishment functions by pairing them with verbal feedback during a sorting task. For 8 of the 9 subjects, trained consequential functions transferred through their respective equivalence classes without additional training. In Experiment 2, transfer of function was initially tested before equivalence testing per se. Three of 4 subjects showed the transfer without a formal equivalence test. In Experiment 3, 3 subjects were given training that gave rise to six new three-member conditional equivalence classes. For 2 of the subjects, the same stimulus could have either a reinforcement or punishment function on the basis of contextual cues that defined its class membership. Experiment 4 assessed whether equivalence training had established general or specific consequential functions primarily by adding novel stimuli in the transfer test. Subjects treated even novel feedback stimuli in the transfer test as consequences, but the direction of consequential effects depended upon the transfer of specific consequential functions through equivalence relations.