On Stimulus Generalization and Stimulus Classes

Stimulus generalization has been defined as the spread of effect of reinforcement for responses emitted in the presence of one stimulus to different stimuli presented under extinction conditions. As a result of stimulus generalization, novel stimuli come to exert stimulus control over members of the response class. Studies in the applied behavior analysis literature, however, have reported experimental preparations that included prompting and reinforcement procedures during what were claimed to be stimulus generalization conditions. These studies violated the procedural requirement that stimulus generalization be tested under extinction conditions. Responses that come under the control of a class of stimuli may do so by direct training or by stimulus generalization. It is desirable for organisms to respond in the presence of members of an appropriately constructed stimulus class, but we should understand the mechanism of entry into the class by its members. If inaccurate claims of stimulus generalization are made when training procedures are used in the ostensible generalization conditions, the robustness of the original training procedures will be over estimated. By adhering to the operational requirements of behavioral definitions, we could better understand the power and limits of our educational and training procedures.     

Stimulus class formation and concept learning: establishment of within- and between-set generalization and transitive relationships via conditional discrimination procedures

Three students with moderate mental retardation were taught a complex stimulus class with a two-choice conditional discrimination procedure applied across eight 10-member stimulus sets. Each set was composed of five age-appropriate and five age-inappropriate examples of clothing, accessories, and leisure items (e.g., a Walkman radio). Discrimination training was programmed serially across each set, and generalization probes were conducted concurrently among all sets. Generalization probes consisted of unreinforced conditional matching trials with comparison items being drawn from (a) the set undergoing training (within-set probes), (b) sets not undergoing training (between-set probes), and (c) both sample and comparison items from different sets (transitive stimulus control probes). Results indicate that within-set generalization, between-set generalization, and transitive stimulus relations controlled responding by all 3 students for items that had been contingently associated with reinforcement. However, items that gained control of responding through within-set and between-set generalization alone (i.e., not acquired through contingent reinforcement) remained at baseline levels during transitive stimulus control probes. Results are discussed in terms of a taxonomy of multiple sources of stimulus control that underlie socially defined and maintained stimulus classes.     

A blueprint for general‐case procedures illustrated by teaching adolescents with autism spectrum disorder to use a chip‐debit card

Individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often respond poorly to novel stimulus combinations and may have difficulty discriminating across critical and noncritical stimulus dimensions without direct teaching. General‐case procedures and multiple‐exemplar training have been effectively used to address this deficit. In the current study, the experimenters outlined general‐case procedures with video modeling, prompting and reinforcement to teach three adolescents with ASD a generalized repertoire of using a chip‐debit card. A multiple‐probe across participants design demonstrated the effectiveness of these procedures. All participants acquired the skill, responding generalized from simulated teaching materials to four novel automatic payment machines, and maintained 4 weeks following teaching. Implications of using these general‐case procedures as a blueprint for future researchers to reference when teaching individuals with ASD a generalized repertoire of any skill are discussed.     

Generalization of delayed identity matching in retarded children.

In an extension of prior research, four retarded children were trained under an identity matching-to-sample procedure containing features previously shown to produce controlled generalization to novel stimuli. They first were taught to relate a particular handsign to the sample shape, then to maintain the handsign over a delay interval, and then to select from an array the comparison shape that permitted the handsign to be maintained (i.e., the shape identical to the sample). An initial test revealed little generalization of matching to novel stimuli, but after handsigns were trained to these stimuli, accurate generalized matching appeared immediately. The results replicated prior findings and demonstrated particular features of stimulus control sufficient to enable generalized matching. A behavioral account of relational matching was supported. The technique used in this study was shown to be effective in teaching abstract relations to nonverbal retarded children.     

NAMING,THE FORMATION OF STIMULUS CLASSES,AND APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

The methods used in Sidman's original studies on equivalence classes provide a framework for analyzing functional verbal behavior. Sidman and others have shown how teaching receptive, name-referent matching may produce rudimentary oral reading and word comprehension skills. Eikeseth and Smith (1992) have extended these findings by showing that children with autism may acquire equivalence classes after learning to supply a common oral name to each stimulus in a potential class. A stimulus class analysis suggests ways to examine (a) the problem of programming generalization from teaching situations to other environments, (b) the expansion of the repertoires that occur in those settings, and (c) the use of naming to facilitate these forms of generalization. Such research will help to clarify and extend Horne and Lowe's recent (1996) account of the role of verbal behavior in the formation of stimulus classes.     

Coding responses and the generalization of matching to sample in children.

Two experiments studied the conditions of stimulus control necessary for the generalization of relational matching to sample. Matching required the selection of comparison shapes rotated 90 degrees clockwise from the orientation of the corresponding sample. In Experiment 1, five children were taught to: (a) code the orientations of samples, (b) transform sample codings to account for the 90 degree rotation, and (c) repeat the transformed sample coding response to a comparison. High levels of generalization occurred with a set of novel stimuli for which stable sample-coding responses were initially available. In another novel set, where stable sample-coding responses were not initially available, low levels of generalized matching were recorded. Matching performance improved after stable coding responses were trained. In Experiment 2, two children and three adults were trained in a form of the matching task that produced poor generalization despite the presence of stable sample-coding responses. Retraining to modify the stimulus control exerted by these coding responses produced an immediate improvement in generalized matching to sample. Results suggest that the generalization of matching is dependent on structure of stimulus control that the component responses exert on each other.     

Generalization of a tactile stimulus in horses.

Using horses, we investigated the control of operant behavior by a tactile stimulus (the training stimulus) and the generalization of behavior to six other similar test stimuli. In a stall, the experimenters mounted a response panel in the doorway. Located on this panel were a response lever and a grain dispenser. The experimenters secured a tactile-stimulus belt to the horse's back. The stimulus belt was constructed by mounting seven solenoids along a piece of burlap in a manner that allowed each to provide the delivery of a tactile stimulus, a repetitive light tapping, at different locations (spaced 10.0 cm apart) along the horse's back. Two preliminary steps were necessary before generalization testing: training a measurable response (lip pressing) and training on several reinforcement schedules in the presence of a training stimulus (tapping by one of the solenoids). We then gave each horse two generalization test sessions. Results indicated that the horses' behavior was effectively controlled by the training stimulus. Horses made the greatest number of responses to the training stimulus, and the tendency to respond to the other test stimuli diminished as the stimuli became farther away from the training stimulus. These findings are discussed in the context of behavioral principles and their relevance to the training of horses.     

Response persistence: the effects of stimulus control on negatively reinforced problem behavior in a concurrent operant

In the context of instructional demands, compliance and problem behavior can be considered concurrent operants. Of applied interest is increasing one response (i.e., compliance) while decreasing the other (i.e., problem behavior). Strategic arrangement of reinforcement can alter response allocation accordingly. Such schedules can also influence response persistence and generalization. A case study is used to illustrate the effects of stimulus-reinforcer relations in a concurrent-operants arrangement involving an adult with developmental disabilities and problem behavior. Results are discussed in the context of basic operant research findings in the areas of stimulus control and behavioral persistence.     

Stimulus duration as a measure of stimulus generalization

Four pigeons in the line-positive group were trained with a vertical line on a green background that signalled intermittent reinforcement while a plain green field signalled extinction. Four pigeons in the line-negative group were trained with the opposite discrimination. Response to a control key terminated any trial and initiated the next trial. The birds also used the control key during generalization tests to control the durations of trials in which various line orientations were presented. These durations were summed to provide generalization gradients of stimulus duration that were positive or negative in accordance with the trained discriminations. In Experiment 2, birds from the line-positive group were tested with a procedure in which the control key was not available on some trials. This provided an independent assessment of response rates to the test stimuli. These rates were used to predict the stimulus durations obtained when the control key was available. The findings supported a general model for the prediction of response distributions among concurrent stimuli from rates observed with single stimuli.     

Assessing control by elements of complex stimuli in delayed matching to sample.

A series of six experiments examined delayed identity matching-to-sample performances of subjects with mental retardation. The stimuli were either one or two simultaneously displayed forms. When the reinforcement contingencies required that only one form exert discriminative control, all subjects achieved high accuracy scores. However, accuracy scores were substantially lower when the contingencies required discriminative control by two forms, suggesting restricted stimulus control. The decline in matching accuracy appeared to reflect selective losses of conditional control by sample stimuli and shifts in control to features of the comparison stimulus displays. The experiments suggest improved techniques for assessing control by complex stimuli and for evaluating the effects of procedures that seek to broaden restricted stimulus control. The results challenge interpretations based on stimulus-generalization decrement or shared attention.     

General attentiveness effects of discriminative training

Using a design that permitted the simultaneous assessment of intra-, inter-, and extradimensional effects of discriminative training, the generality of discriminative effects that have been said to reflect increases in “general attentiveness” was assessed. Pigeons received either discriminative training with two stimuli correlated with reinforcement and one stimulus correlated with nonreinforcement, or nondifferential reinforcement (control) training. One positive stimulus was part of an intradimensional task and the other was not. After training, generalization tests were conducted to assess stimulus control along several dimensions. Discriminative training resulted in increased control along dimensions of the positive stimulus involved in the intradimensional task, but not along any dimensions of the other positive stimulus. The results suggested that discriminative training leads to increases in attention that are neither so general as suggested by the “general attentiveness” view nor so specific as to be revealed solely by intradimensional effects.     

Inhibitory stimulus control following errorless discrimination learning

Three generalization procedures were used to investigate inhibitory stimulus control following discrimination learning with few errors. Three groups of pigeons acquired a discrimination between a green stimulus (the positive stimulus) and a vertical or horizontal line (the negative stimulus) through differential autoshaping followed by multiple schedule presentation of the two stimuli with gradually increasing stimulus durations. Genereralization testing was along a line-tilt continuum. For one group, the test involved a resistance-to-reinforcement procedure in which responses to all line tilts were reinforced on a variable-interval schedule. For a second group, also tested with the resistance-to-reinforcement procedure, the lines were superimposed on the green field that formerly served as the positive stimulus. A third group was tested in extinction with the combined stimuli. Control groups had no discrimination training but responding to green was nondifferentially reinforced. The control subjects responded more to all line tilts during testing than did the comparable experimental subjects, indicating that the negative stimulus had become an inhibitory stimulus. Both resistance-to-reinforcement groups revealed inhibitory gradients around the negative stimulus, but the gradient for the extinction group was relatively flat. These data are consistent with others that modify Terrace's early conclusion concerning the failure of inhibition to develop during errorless training.     

The legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): Twenty-five years of research on stimulus generalization

This paper is a selective review of the methods, problems, and findings in the area of operant stimulus generalization over the 25 years since the publication of the original paper by Guttman and Kalish (1956) on discriminability and spectral generalization in the pigeon. The paper falls into five main sections, which encompass the main themes and problems stemming from the Guttman and Kalish work and its immediate successors. The first section addresses the relationship between stimulus generalization and stimulus control, as well as the variety of testing procedures and dependent variables used to measure generalization. The next section reviews the limited literature on the effects of early rearing on the generalization gradient. The relationship between discriminability among test stimuli and the slope of the spectral gradient is discussed in the third section, with emphasis upon recent reassessments of the pigeon's hue discriminability function. The fourth section reviews the topic of inhibitory stimulus control, one which developed with the discovery of the peak shift following intradimensional discrimination training. Problems of definition and measurement are discussed in conjunction with the gradient forms used to index inhibitory control. The last section is devoted to attentional effects and the two principal theories postulated to account for them. A survey of different attentional paradigms is provided and the possible role of constant irrelevant stimuli as a source of control is examined. A brief conclusion summarizes the contribution of the generalization technique toward an understanding of the nature and acquisition of stimulus control.     

A comparison of multiple versus single examples of the correct stimulus on task acquisition and generalization by persons with developmental disabilities

In teaching discriminations to persons with retardation, we often presume we will improve acquisition and generalization if we use multiple examples of boththe correct and incorrect stimuli. Two experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. In the first experiment, 7 persons with moderate retardation learned to discriminate between functional words under two conditions. In one condition, Multiple Example of S- Only,1 example of the correct stimulus (S+) and 10 examples of the incorrect stimulus (S-) were used during acquisition. In the other condition, Multiple Examples of S+ and S-,10 examples of the S+ and 10 examples of the S- were used. Results showed that the condition which presented only a single example of S+ was superior 16 times and inferior 4 times during acquisition, generalization, and maintenance. A second experiment was conducted to (a) replicate the methodology and procedures in Experiment 1 with different participants, (b) determine whether the results were replicable, and (c) obtain efficiency data. Results replicated the findings of the first experiment. The condition which presented only a single example of S+ was superior on measures of (a) trials to criterion, (b) percent correct during acquisition, and (c) minutes to criterion. On measures of generalization, the two conditions were relatively equal. Thus, the condition which presented only a single example of the correct stimulus was more efficient and was just as effective in generalization as the condition which presented multiple examples of both the S+ and S-. These surprising results were discussed in terms of stimulus control, why students performed just as well during generalization when only one example of the S+ was used, why acquisition was also poorer for this condition, and how future studies might address these points.     

Discriminated response and incentive processes in operant conditioning: a two-factor model of stimulus control

Understanding stimulus control generated in instrumental learning requires the direct investigation of discriminated response and reinforcer (incentive) processes acquired exclusively through the response-reinforcer contingencies operating on complex (multicomponent) baselines. Two series of stimulus-compounding studies accomplished this direct investigation. In one series, the independent variable was the relative reinforcement between schedule components; in the second series, it was relative response rate between components. Stimulus-compounding tests revealed that response and incentive processes enhanced each other when in agreement, counteracted each other when in opposition, and produced intermediate results when only one factor was operating. This pattern of results led to the conclusion that these factors were algebraically combining and to the development of a response/incentive matrix reflecting these dynamics. This two-factor analysis was extended to the peak-shift effect in stimulus generalization experiments and to the generation of inhibitory control. Two decades of stimulus compounding and peak-shift research were organized within this two-factor framework, extending this traditional approach to learning to active research areas heretofore not systematically considered in these terms.     

Sample stimulus control shaping and restricted stimulus control in capuchin monkeys: a methodological note

This paper reports use of sample stimulus control shaping procedures to teach arbitrary matching-to-sample to 2 capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). The procedures started with identity matching-to-sample. During shaping, stimulus features of the sample were altered gradually, rendering samples and comparisons increasingly physically dissimilar. The objective was to transform identity matching into arbitrary matching (i.e., matching not based on common physical features of the sample and comparison stimuli). Experiment 1 used a two-comparison procedure. The shaping procedure was ultimately effective, but occasional high error rates at certain program steps inspired a follow-up study. Experiment 2 used the same basic approach, but with a three-comparison matching task. During shaping, the monkey performed accurately until the final steps of the program. Subsequent experimentation tested the hypothesis that the decrease in accuracy was due to restricted stimulus control by sample stimulus features that had not yet been changed in the shaping program. Results were consistent with this hypothesis, thus suggesting a new approach that may transform the sample stimulus control shaping procedure from a sometimes useful laboratory tool to a more general approach to teaching the first instance of arbitrary matching performances to participants who show protracted difficulties in learning such performances.     

Effects of variable-interval value and amount of training on stimulus generalization.

In Experiment 1 pigeons pecked a key that was illuminated with a 501-nm light and obtained food by doing so according to a variable-interval (VI) schedule of reinforcement, the mean value of which differed across groups: either 30 s, 120 s, or 240 s. The pigeons in all three groups were trained for 10 50-min sessions. Generalization testing was conducted in extinction with different wavelengths of light. Absolute and relative generalization gradients were similar in shape for the three groups. Experiment 2 was a systematic replication of Experiment 1 using line orientation as the stimulus dimension and a mean VI value of either 30 s or 240 s. Again, gradients of generalization were similar for the two groups. In Experiment 3 pigeons pecked a key that was illuminated with a 501-nm light and obtained food reinforcers according to either a VI 30-s or a 240-s schedule. Training continued until response rates stabilized (> 30 sessions). For subjects trained with the 30-s schedule, generalization gradients were virtually identical regardless of whether training was for 10 sessions (Experiment 1) or until response rates stabilized. For subjects trained with the VI 240-s schedule, absolute generalization gradients for subjects trained to stability were displaced upward relative to gradients for subjects trained for only 10 sessions (Experiment 1), and relative generalization gradients were slightly flatter. These results indicate that the shape of a generalization gradient does not necessarily depend on the rate of reinforcement during 10-session single-stimulus training but that the effects of prolonged training on stimulus generalization may be schedule dependent.     

Comparison of stimulus control and reinforcement control effects on imitative behavior

An attempt was made to evaluate reinforcement and stimulus control of imitative and non-imitative behavior. The imitative response required the subject to duplicate the experimenter's response by matching blocks that varied in color. The factor designed to evaluate stimulus control was fading, a procedure that systematically varies the differences between the imitative and non-imitative stimuli. The topography and duration of the non-imitative stimuli were faded in. The factors designed to evaluate reinforcement control were differential reinforcement of non-imitative behavior and time out from positive reinforcement. The results showed stimulus control of non-imitation to be more important than reinforcement control, and that reinforcing events were not sufficient to control non-imitation; while the arrangement of stimulus events was sufficient to control non-imitation. These results were related to studies providing evidence for the processes of discrimination and generalization.     

Generalization of the disruptive effects of alternative stimuli when combined with target stimuli in extinction

Differential‐reinforcement treatments reduce target problem behavior in the short term but at the expense of making it more persistent long term. Basic and translational research based on behavioral momentum theory suggests that combining features of stimuli governing an alternative response with the stimuli governing target responding could make target responding less persistent. However, changes to the alternative stimulus context when combining alternative and target stimuli could diminish the effectiveness of the alternative stimulus in reducing target responding. In an animal model with pigeons, the present study reinforced responding in the presence of target and alternative stimuli. When combining the alternative and target stimuli during extinction, we altered the alternative stimulus through changes in line orientation. We found that (1) combining alternative and target stimuli in extinction more effectively decreased target responding than presenting the target stimulus on its own; (2) combining these stimuli was more effective in decreasing target responding trained with lower reinforcement rates; and (3) changing the alternative stimulus reduced its effectiveness when it was combined with the target stimulus. Therefore, changing alternative stimuli (e.g., therapist, clinical setting) during behavioral treatments that combine alternative and target stimuli could reduce the effectiveness of those treatments in disrupting problem behavior.