Development and crossmodal transfer of contextual control of emergent stimulus relations

Six normally capable adults first learned three conditional relations in each of two prospective equivalence classes via match-to-sample training with figures as conditional (sample) and discriminative (comparison) stimuli. Then one trained conditional relation in each prospective class was brought under the control of contextual stimuli, two dictated nonsense syllables. Test performances indicated the emergence of untrained conditional relations, and therefore two equivalence classes, that were conditional on the contextual stimuli. These tests involved untrained combinations of contextual stimuli and stimuli in conditional relations, suggesting that the contextual stimuli functioned independently to control conditional relations rather than forming compound stimuli with samples and comparisons in training. Next, two novel figures were made equivalent to each of the original dictated contextual stimuli by match-to-sample training and testing. On subsequent tests, all subjects demonstrated transfer of conditional control of untrained conditional relations from the original auditory contextual stimuli to equivalent visual stimuli. These outcomes further supported the conclusion that the contextual stimuli exerted true conditional control over conditional relations in the equivalence classes and were not merely elements of compound stimuli.     

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.     

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.     

Quantitative and methodological aspects of stimulus equivalence

The number of different ways of linking stimuli in the training phase of a conditional discrimination procedure designed to teach equivalence relations has hitherto been underestimated. An algorithm from graph theory that produces the correct number of such different ways is given. The establishment of equivalence relations requires transitive stimulus control. A misconception in a previous analysis of the conditions necessary for demonstrating transitive stimulus control is indicated. This misconception concerns responding in an unreinforced test trial to a negative rather than a positive comparison stimulus. Such behavior cannot be attributed to discriminative control by degree of association with reinforcement if the negative comparison stimulus has been less associated with reinforcement than the positive comparison stimulus in an antecedent training phase.