Relations among equivalence, naming, and conflicting baseline control

Three studies were conducted with different groups of 6 students each to explore the effects of training class-inconsistent relations and naming on demonstrations of emergent arbitrary stimulus relations. In all studies, two three-member equivalence classes of Greek symbols (A1B1C1 and A2B2C2) emerged as a result of training in conditional discriminations. Two new symbols were introduced (X and Y), and additional conditional discriminations were trained, whereby X was designated as the positive discriminative stimulus (S+) and Y was designated as the negative discriminative stimulus (S-) for A1 and B2. Conversely, Y was designated as the S+ and X as the S- for B1 and A2. This introduced conflicting sources of control within and between classes. In Study 1, subjects were not provided with names for the stimuli. In Study 2, the experimenter provided common names for the stimuli within each class. In Study 3, the subjects were required to use the common names during conditional discrimination training and test-trial blocks. In all experiments, equivalence responding with respect to the original classes was disrupted for some subjects subsequent to learning the new relations. Furthermore, in Studies 2 and 3, there were frequent examples of noncorrespondence between observed (listener or speaker) naming patterns and derived relations. These results support the view that demonstrations of equivalence are subject to control from a variety of sources rather than being fundamentally dependent on naming.     

Equivalence class establishment, expansion, and modification in preschool children

Preschool children were taught four two-choice match-to-sample conditional discriminations with 10 arbitrary visual stimuli. For 6 participants, 2 of the 10 stimuli served as the sample, or conditional, stimuli in all discriminations. For 5 additional participants, the same pair of stimuli served as the discriminative, or comparison, stimuli in all discriminations. Equivalence classes were established with more participants in the latter group, replicating prior research with participants with retardation. Four participants, in whom equivalence classes were established and who were available for further participation, were exposed to new conditional discriminations without trial-by-trial feedback and involving some novel and some familiar stimuli. Consistent conditional responding was observed, and tests for inclusion of the novel stimuli in the original classes showed class expansion. Training to reverse the unreinforced conditional performances produced a reversal of class membership in 3 of 4 participants, an outcome not consistent with other studies. The results are discussed with respect to the interaction of class structure and size.     

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.     

Reinforcement of compliance with respiratory treatment in a child with cystic fibrosis.

An 8-year-old boy with cystic fibrosis (CF), mental retardation, and autism exhibited noncompliance with respiratory treatments that were essential for the management of his CF. A treatment involving shaping cooperation while still allowing escape for aggression and avoidance behavior resulted in increases compliance with respiratory treatments and decreases in problem behavior. Treatment gains were maintained over 3 months.     

Evaluation of antecedent stimulus parameters for the treatment of escape-maintained aberrant behavior

We evaluated a methodology for identifying the range of stimulus features of antecedent stimuli associated with aberrant behavior in demand contexts in natural settings. For each participant, an experimental analysis of antecedents (Phase 1) was conducted to confirm the hypothesis that task instructions occasioned increases in aberrant behavior. During Phase 2, specific stimulus features associated with the presentation of task instructions were assessed by evaluating the child's behavior across two distinct settings, therapists, and types of tasks in a sequential fashion. Aberrant behavior occurred immediately across settings and therapists, presumably because the presence of a discriminative stimulus for escape-maintained behavior (the delivery of a task instruction) occasioned aberrant behavior. However, aberrant behavior decreased initially across tasks, suggesting that familiarity with the task might be a variable. During Phase 3, an experimental (functional) analysis of consequences was conducted with 2 participants to verify that aberrant behavior was maintained by negative reinforcement. During Phase 4, a treatment package that interspersed play with task instructions was conducted to disrupt the ongoing occurrence of aberrant behavior. Immediate and durable treatment effects occurred for 2 of the 3 participants.     

THE EFFECTS OF THE QUESTION “WHAT IS THIS?” ON TACT-TRAINING OUTCOMES OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

Tact training is a common element of many habilitative programs for individuals with developmental disabilities. A commonly recommended practice is to include a supplemental question (e.g., “What is this?”) during training trials for tacts of objects. However, the supplemental question is not a defining feature of the tact relation, and prior research suggests that its inclusion might sometimes impede tact acquisition. The present study compared tact training with and without the supplemental question in terms of acquisition and maintenance. Two of 4 children with autism acquired tacts more efficiently in the object-only condition; the remaining 2 children acquired tacts more efficiently in the object + question condition. During maintenance tests in the absence of the supplemental question, all participants emitted tacts at end-of-training levels across conditions with no differential effect observed between training conditions.Key words: autism, language training, stimulus control, tacts, verbal behaviorSkinner (1957) defined the tact as a response “evoked by a particular object or event or property of an object or event” (p. 82) and considered it to be one of the most important verbal operants. Tacts are maintained by generalized social reinforcement and, thus, they are central to many social interactions. For example, the tact “That cloud looks like a horse” (under the control of a visual stimulus) could evoke a short verbal interaction about the sky or horses. The tact “My tummy hurts” (under the control of an interoceptive stimulus) could evoke soothing statements from a parent. A child who tacts “doggie” in the presence of a cat likely would evoke a correction statement from an adult, further refining two stimulus classes (i.e., dog and cat). These examples illustrate that, despite their topographical differences, the tact relations share antecedent control by a nonverbal discriminative stimulus (S^D) and are maintained by generalized social reinforcement.In habilitative programs for individuals with language impairments, autism, and intellectual disabilities, tacts often are taught for objects (e.g., ball), object features (e.g., color, size, shape), activities (e.g., jumping), prepositions (e.g., between), and emotions (e.g., sad) among others. Although conceptualized differently among therapeutic approaches, the tact relation occupies a central position in many early-intervention curricula. For example, Lovaas (2003) and Leaf and McEachin (1999) describe these relations as expressive labels and recommend that they be taught early in language training using three-dimensional objects accompanied by the supplemental questions “What is it?” or “What''s this?” Alternatively, Sundberg and Partington (1998) explicitly refer to the relation as a tact and recommend beginning instruction by including the question “What is it?” before eventually fading the question. In addition to these clinical manuals, the use of supplemental questions during tact training has appeared in some empirical studies on tact or expressive-label training (e.g., Braam & Sundberg, 1991; Coleman & Stedman, 1974), but not others (e.g., Williams & Greer, 1993). Regardless of whether tact training initially includes supplemental questions prior to response opportunities, tacts ultimately should be emitted readily under the sole control of the nonverbal S^D as well as when it happens to be accompanied by a question.Conceptually, at least four potential problems could arise from introducing supplemental questions early and consistently in tact training. First, the acquired responses might not be emitted unless the question is posed (i.e., prompt dependence). This problem would lead to few spontaneous tacts occurring outside the explicit stimulus control of the training environment. Williams and Greer (1993) compared comprehensive language training conducted under the stimulus control specified in Skinner''s (1957) taxonomy of verbal behavior to a more traditional psycholinguistic perspective with supplemental questions and instructions embedded within trials. For all three adolescents with developmental disabilities, the targets taught from the verbal behavior perspective were maintained better in natural contexts than those taught from the psycholinguistic perspective. However, because data were not reported for each individual verbal operant, it is unclear what specific impact their tact-training procedures had on the outcomes.The second potential problem is that the supplemental question might acquire intraverbal control over early responses and interfere with the acquisition of subsequent tact targets. For example, Partington, Sundberg, Newhouse, and Spengler (1994) showed that the tact repertoire of a child with autism had been hindered by prior instruction during which she was asked “What is this?” while being shown an object. The supplemental question subsequently evoked previously acquired responses and blocked the ability of new nonverbal S^Ds (i.e., objects) to evoke new responses. Partington et al. then showed that new tacts were acquired by eliminating the supplemental question from instructional trials.The third potential problem is that learners might imitate part of or the entire supplemental question prior to emitting the target response (e.g., “What is it” → “What is it … ball.”). For example, Coleman and Stedman (1974) demonstrated that a 10-year-old girl with autism imitated the question “What is this?” while being taught to label stimuli depicted in color photographs. Such an outcome results in a socially awkward tact repertoire and requires additional intervention to remedy the problem.Finally, including supplemental questions during tact training might impede skill acquisition, perhaps via a combination of the problems described earlier. Sundberg, Endicott, and Eigenheer (2000) taught sign tacts to two young children with autism who had prior difficulty acquiring tacts. In one condition, the experimenter held up an object and asked, “What is that?” In the comparison condition, the experimenter intraverbally prompted the participant to “sign [object name]” in the presence of the object. Sundberg et al. demonstrated substantially more efficient tact acquisition under the sign-prompt condition than when the question “What is that?” was included in trials; the latter condition sometimes failed to produce mastery-level responding.Teaching an entire tact repertoire while including supplemental questions (e.g., “What is it?”) during training trials could produce a learner who is able to talk about his or her environment only when asked to do so with similar questions. To the extent that this is not a therapist''s clinical goal, teaching the tact under its proper controlling variables may eliminate such problems. Of course, inclusion of supplemental questions during the early phases of language training could be faded over time such that the target tact relation is left intact prior to the end of training (Sundberg & Partington, 1998). However, the aforementioned studies have documented problems with using supplemental questions during tact training. Given the ubiquity of tact training in habilitation programs, the numerous problems that may arise when supplemental questions are included in training trials, and the limited research on the topic, further investigation is warranted. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to compare directly the rate of acquisition and subsequent maintenance of tacts taught using only a nonverbal S^D (i.e., object only) with tacts taught using a question (“What is this?”) in conjunction with the nonverbal S^D (i.e., object + question). The present study extends earlier research by examining both acquisition and maintenance and by including individuals with no prior history of formal tact training.     

An evaluation of the stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach single-subject design to distance education students via blackboard

The purpose of the current study was to examine the degree to which instruction based on stimulus equivalence procedures could be used to teach single-subject design methodology to graduate-level professionals through a Web-based course management system known as Blackboard (see http://www.blackboard.com). Specifically, we used the stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach relations among the names, definitions, graphical representations of the designs, and two practical scenarios of when it would be appropriate to implement each design. Most participants demonstrated the emergence of untaught relations, and some participants showed generalization to novel vignettes and graphs. Relations largely were not maintained at follow-up but were retaught.     

Relational learning in a context of transposition: a review

In a typical transposition task, an animal is presented with a single pair of stimuli (for example, S3+ S4−, where plus and minus denote reward and nonreward and digits denote stimulus location on a sensory dimension such as size). Subsequently, an animal is presented with a testing pair that contains a previously reinforced or nonreinforced stimulus and a novel stimulus (for example, S2–S3 and S4–S5). Does the choice of a novel S2 instead of previously reinforced S3 in a testing pair S2–S3 indicate that the animal has learned a relation (i.e., “select smaller”)? This review of empirical evidence and theoretical accounts shows that an organism''s behavior in a transposition task is undoubtedly influenced by prior reinforcement history of the training stimuli (Spence, 1937). However, it is also affected by two other factors that are relational in nature—a similarity of two testing stimuli to each other and an overall similarity of the testing pair as a whole to the training pair as a whole. The influence of the two latter factors is especially evident in studies that use multiple pairs of training stimuli and a wide range of testing pairs comprising nonadjacent stimuli (Lazareva, Miner, Young, & Wasserman, 2008; Lazareva, Wasserman, & Young, 2005). In sum, the evidence suggests that both prior reinforcement history and relational information affect an animal''s behavior in a typical transposition task.     

Rethinking reinforcement: allocation, induction, and contingency

The concept of reinforcement is at least incomplete and almost certainly incorrect. An alternative way of organizing our understanding of behavior may be built around three concepts: allocation, induction, and correlation. Allocation is the measure of behavior and captures the centrality of choice: All behavior entails choice and consists of choice. Allocation changes as a result of induction and correlation. The term induction covers phenomena such as adjunctive, interim, and terminal behavior-behavior induced in a situation by occurrence of food or another Phylogenetically Important Event (PIE) in that situation. Induction resembles stimulus control in that no one-to-one relation exists between induced behavior and the inducing event. If one allowed that some stimulus control were the result of phylogeny, then induction and stimulus control would be identical, and a PIE would resemble a discriminative stimulus. Much evidence supports the idea that a PIE induces all PIE-related activities. Research also supports the idea that stimuli correlated with PIEs become PIE-related conditional inducers. Contingencies create correlations between "operant" activity (e.g., lever pressing) and PIEs (e.g., food). Once an activity has become PIE-related, the PIE induces it along with other PIE-related activities. Contingencies also constrain possible performances. These constraints specify feedback functions, which explain phenomena such as the higher response rates on ratio schedules in comparison with interval schedules. Allocations that include a lot of operant activity are "selected" only in the sense that they generate more frequent occurrence of the PIE within the constraints of the situation; contingency and induction do the "selecting."     

Reinforcing saccadic amplitude variability

Saccadic endpoint variability is often viewed as the outcome of neural noise occurring during sensorimotor processing. However, part of this variability might result from operant learning. We tested this hypothesis by reinforcing dispersions of saccadic amplitude distributions, while maintaining constant their medians. In a first experiment we reinforced the least frequent saccadic amplitudes to increase variability, and then reinforced the central part of the amplitude distributions to reduce variability. The target was placed at a constant distance from the fovea after the saccade to maintain the postsaccadic visual signal constant and an auditory reinforcement was delivered depending on saccadic amplitude. The second experiment tested the effects of the contingency. We reinforced high levels of variability in 4 participants, whereas 4 other participants were assigned to a yoked control group. On average, saccadic amplitude standard deviations were doubled while the medians remained mostly unchanged in the experimental participants in both experiments, and variability returned to baseline level when low variability was reinforced. In the control group no consistent changes in amplitude distributions were observed. These results, showing that variability can be reinforced, challenge the idea of a stochastic neural noise. We instead propose that selection processes constrain saccadic amplitude distributions.