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: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli

A detailed analysis is presented of the ways in which control by the negative stimulus in two-comparison conditional discriminations may be expected to affect the outcome of tests for the properties of equivalence relations. Control by the negative stimulus should produce the following results: (a) no observable effect on symmetry tests; (b) reflexivity test results should look like “oddity” rather than “identity”; and (c) transitivity tests that involve an odd number of nodes should yield results that are 100% opposite to tests that involve an even number of nodes. The analysis also considers the effects of variation in the type of comparison-stimulus control between and within baseline conditional discriminations. Methods are suggested for experimentally regulating the type of control, and for verifying the predictions that the analysis generates. If suggested experiments continue to support the analysis, investigators who use two-comparison conditional discriminations to study equivalence relations will either have to control explicitly whether the positive or the negative comparison governs their subjects' choices, or they will have to abandon two comparisons and use three or more comparisons instead.     

Classroom applications of stimulus equivalence technology

We review basic concepts and methods of stimulus equivalence research and suggest applications in teaching rudimentary language arts skills in the classroom. We describe methods of establishing equivalence-based networks of matching-to-sample, writing, and naming performances. The methods may be used as a supplement to classroom instruction to assess whether standard curriculum-based approaches establish such integrated networks. Methods derived from equivalence research may be useful for remediation when traditional teaching approaches fail. Recent research suggests that direct focus on spelling performances may be required if entire networks of language arts skills are to be acquired. In addition, the equivalence relations themselves may require concentrated teaching in some children.     

Relative sensitivity to reinforcer amount and delay in a self-control choice situation.

Rats were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules in which a single variable-interval schedule arranged entry into one of two terminal-link delay periods (fixed-interval schedules). The shorter delay ended with the delivery of a single food pellet; the longer day ended with a larger number of food pellets (two under some conditions and six under others). In Experiment 1, the terminal-link delays were selected so that under all conditions the ratio of delays would exactly equal the ratio of the number of pellets. But the absolute duration of the delays differed across conditions. In one condition, for example, rats chose between one pellet delayed 5 s and six pellets delayed 30 s; in another condition rats chose between one pellet delayed 10 s and six pellets delayed 60 s. The generalized matching law predicts indifference between the two alternatives, assuming that the sensitivity parameters for amount and delay of reinforcement are equal. The rats' choices were, in fact, close to indifference except when the choice was between one pellet delayed 5 s and six pellets delayed 30 s. That deviation from indifference suggests that the sensitivities to amount and delay differ from each other depending on the durations of the delays. In Experiment 2, rats chose between one pellet following a 5-s delay and six pellets following a delay that was systematically increased over sessions to find a point of indifference. Indifference was achieved when the delay to the six pellets was approximately 55 s. These results are consistent with the possibility that the relative sensitivities to amount and delay differ as a function of the delays.     

Control of adolescents' arbitrary matching-to-sample by positive and negative stimulus relations.

In Experiment 1, four developmentally delayed adolescents were taught an A-B matching-to-sample task with nonidentical stimuli: given Sample A1, select Comparison B1; given A2, select B2. During nonreinforced test trials, appropriate matching occurred when B stimuli appeared as samples and A stimuli as comparisons, i.e., the sample and comparison functions were symmetrical (B-A matching). During A-B or B-A matching test trials in which familiar samples and correct comparisons were presented along with novel comparisons, the subjects selected the correct comparisons. In tests with familiar samples and both incorrect and novel comparisons, subjects selected the novel comparisons, demonstrating control by both positive ("matching") and negative ("nonmatching") stimulus relations in A-B and B-A arrays. In Experiment 2, 12 developmentally delayed subjects were taught a two-stage arbitrary-matching task (e.g., A-B, C-B matching). Test sessions showed sample-comparison symmetry (e.g., B-A, B-C matching) and derived sample-comparison relations (e.g., A-C, C-A matching) for 11 subjects. These subjects also demonstrated control by positive and negative stimulus relations in the derived relations.     

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.     

A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and nonarbitrary stimulus relations

During Experiments 1 and 2, subjects were trained in a series of related conditional discriminations in a matching-to-sample format (A1-B1, A1-C1 and A2-B2, A2-C2). A low-rate performance was then explicitly trained in the presence of B1, and a high-rate performance was explicitly trained in the presence of B2. The two types of schedule performance transferred to the C stimuli for all subjects in both experiments, in the absence of explicit reinforcement through equivalence (i.e., C1 = low rate and C2 = high rate). In Experiment 2, it was also shown that these discriminative functions transferred from the C1-C2 stimuli to two novel stimuli that were physically similar to the C stimuli (SC1 and SC2, respectively). For both these experiments, subjects demonstrated the predicted equivalence responding during matching-to-sample equivalence tests. In Experiments 3 and 4, the conditional discrimination training from the first two experiments was modified in that two further conditional discrimination tasks were trained (C1-D1 and C2-D2). However, for these tasks the D stimuli served only as positive comparisons, and ND1 and ND2 stimuli served as negative comparisons (i.e., C1 × ND1 and C2 × ND2). Subsequent to training, the negatively related stimuli (ND1 and ND2) did not become discriminative for the schedule performances explicitly trained in the presence of B1 and B2, respectively. Instead, the ND1 stimulus became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B2, and ND2 became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B1. All subjects from Experiment 4 showed that the novel stimulus SND1, which was physically similar to ND1, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND1. Similarly, SND2, which was physically similar to ND2, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND2. Subjects from both Experiments 3 and 4 also produced equivalence responding on matching-to-sample equivalence tests that corresponded perfectly to the derived performances shown on the transfer of discriminative control tests.     

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.