Complex Stimulus Control and Equivalence

18/04/2017 Complexstimuluscontrolandequivalence.
Complexstimuluscontrolandequivalence.
Print
TitleAnnotation: SpecialIssue:StimulusEquivalence
Author: Stromer,RobertMcIlvane,WilliamJ.Serna,RichardW.
Date: Sep22,1993
Words: 4954
Publication: ThePsychologicalRecord
ISSN: 00332933
Acompleteaccountofhowstimulusstimulusrelationsgiverisetoequivalencerelationswillrequirethesystematicanalysisofcomplexstimuli.
Bycomplexstimuliwemeanthosethathavemultiplefeaturesorelements,eachofwhichmayexertindependentcontroloverbehaviorunder
somecircumstances.Afocusoncomplexstimuliwillhelpbringlaboratorystudiesofequivalenceinlinewithlearningasitmayoccurinthe
naturalenvironment.Intheclassroom,forexample,equivalencerelationsmaybeacquiredindirectlyamongsimultaneouslyavailablebut
redundantstimuli,suchaspictures,spokenwords,andprintednames.Inothercircumstances,thecontingenciesofreinforcementmayrequire
controlbyelementsofcomplexstimuli:Thepictureofadogmayoccasionaresponsetoeitherdogorperrodependingonwhetherthecontext
callsforarelationbasedon"English"or"Spanish."
AsdefinedbySidmanandTailby(1982),theinferenceofstimulusequivalenceclassesrequiresnovelconditionaldiscriminationsasoutcome
performances.Wewilldescribeaseriesofstudiesthatshowhowcomplexstimuliinfluencetheestablishmentoftheseconditional
discriminationsandstimulusclasses.Discussionsofthesestudieswillsuggestthattheempiricalworkonequivalencemaybenefitby(a)
blendinginaspectsofworkconductedundertherubricofassociativelearningandattention(cf.Williams,1984)and(b)reconsideringthe
conceptofcompoundstimuluscontrolanditspotentialroleinequivalence(cf.Sidman,1986).
StandardArbitraryMatchingtoSample
Webeginwithatypicalequivalenceexperiment.Figure1depictscomputerdisplaysofstandardmatchingtosampleprocedures(Dube,1991
Dube&Mcllvane,1989)inwhicheachsampleandcomparisonistreatedasasingleelementstimulus.ThesamplestimuliareGreekletters(A1
andA2)andappearonthecenterkeythecomparisonstimuliareprintednonsensewords(B1andB2)andappearontwoofthefourouter
keys.SubjectsarefirsttaughtABmatching.WhenA1isdisplayed,selectionofB1isreinforcedwhenA2isdisplayed,selectionofB2is
reinforced.ThesamesamplestimuliarethenrelatedtonewcomparisonstimulibyteachingACmatching:ifA1,selectC1ifA2,selectC2.
Inferencesoftheformationoftwothreememberstimulusclasses(A1B1C1andA2B2C2)andstimulusequivalencearejustifiediftesting
showstheemergentrelationsBCandCB.Thesestandardmatchingprocedures,andmanyvariationsofthem,havebeenusedtoestablish
equivalencerelationsinhumansubjectsofwidelyvaryingcapabilities(Fields,Verhave,&Fath,1984Mackay,1991Mcllvane,1992Stromer,
1991).
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=14842167 1/11
ArbitraryMatchingtoComplexSamples
Unlikestandardmatchingprocedures,wesoughttoestablishstimulusclassesviaconditionalrelationsbetweentheelementsofcomplex
samplestimuli(Stromer&Stromer,1990a,1992).Figure2showsABDmatchinginwhichthesamplestimuliwerecombinationsoftones(A1
andA2)andcolors(B1andB2)andthecomparisonstimuliwereforms(D1andD2)selectionsofD1andD2wereconditionaluponA1B1and
A2B2,respectively.
Next,inACEmatching,selectionsofE1andE2wereconditionaluponsampleswhichconsistedofthesametonesbutdifferentcolors,A1C1
andA2C2.ToneandcolorelementsofthesamplesinABDandACEtrialswerethusperfectlycorrelatedwithcomparisonselectionandthe
deliveryofreinforcement.Becausethetoneswerecommontothesetrials,abasisfortwofivememberstimulusclassesexisted.Testsforthese
classesincludedallstandardmatchingrelationsinvolvingcolorsandforms.Forexample,manysubjectsshowedclassconsistent
performancesontestslikeBCandDE.
Thesampleelementsinthesestudieswereredundantduringtrainingthus,subjectswerenotrequiredbythecontingenciestoattendtobothof
themoneverytrial.Theemergentrelations,however,demonstratedthatsubjectsdidattendtobothstimuluselementsatsomepointduring
training,eventhoughnotrequiredbythecontingencies.Therelationsthatemergedsuggesttheformationofstimulusclassesamong
comparisonandredundantsamplestimuli.Additionalsupportforthesefindingscomesfromrecentstudiesinwhichvisualvisualstimulus
complexesyieldednewarbitrarymatchingperformancesinanindividualwithautism(Maguire,1992)andinnormallycapablepreschool
children(Schenk,inpress).
Emergentrelationsdemonstratedinthecomplexsamplestudiesmaypermitaninferenceofstimulusequivalenceclasses,asdefinedby
SidmanandTailby(1982).ThisinferencewouldassumethatemergentrelationssuchasBCandCBafterABDandACEtrainingreflectthe
combinedeffectsofsymmetryandtransitivity(Fields&Verhave,1987Sidman&Tailby,1982).Suchoutcomes,however,mayreflectonly
transitivitybecausethesimultaneouspairingofthesampleelementsmightbetantamounttodirecttrainingoftheABandACrelations,and
theirsymmetricalBAandCArelations.Viewedthisway,thebasesforclassformationinthecomplexsamplestudiesdifferfromthetypical
equivalencestudywhichassessesthereversibilityofsampleandcomparisonfunctions(symmetry)asanoutcomeperformance.Further
researchwillbeneededtodeterminewhetherthesedifferenceshaveimplicationsforunderstandingthestimuluscontrolprocessesinvolvedin
equivalenceandrelatedphenomena.
Asnotedearlier,thecontingenciesofreinforcementinthepriorexperimentsdidnotrequirediscriminativecontrolbybothtoneandcolor
elementsofthesamples.Indeed,thetestperformancesofsomeofthecollegestudentsshowedthatcoloralonetendedtocontrolcomparison
selectionandthatthetoneshadbeenignored.Thesesamesubjectsalsofailedtoshowclassconsistentperformancesduringtesting(e.g.,
TestsBCandDE)becausethetoneswerethestimulithatlinkedtheABDandACErelations.
Theresultsforsubjectswhoignoredthetonesareanalogoustothosereportedinpreviousstudiesofattention(e.g.,Bickel,Stella,&Etzel,
1984Litrownik,Mclnnis,WetzelPritchard,&Filipelli,1978Lovaas,Schreibman,Koegel,&Rehm,1971Reynolds,1961Warren,1953).In
thosestudies,stimuluselementsthatwerejointlyandredundantlydisplayedduringdiscriminationtrainingledtothedevelopmentofcontrolby
oneorafewoftheelements(restrictedstimuluscontrol),ratherthancontrolbyeachoftheindividualelements(broadstimuluscontrol).The
subjects'apparentdisregardofauditorystimuliinfavorofvisualonesisalsoreminiscentofthe"visualdominance"phenomenonthathasbeen
reportedinstudieswithbothpigeonandhumansubjects(Colavita,1974Posner,Nissen,&Klein,1976Randich,Klein,&LoLordo,1978)and
thephenomenonof"overshadowing"thathasbeendemonstratedinstudiesofPavlovianconditioning(e.g.Mackintosh,1974Rescorla,1988).
Afollowupstudyofclassformationwithcomplexsamplesbypassedthisproblemofrestrictedstimuluscontrol,inpart,byprovidingcollege
studentswithhistoriesofcomparisonselectiontobothtoneandcolorelementsofthecomplexsamples(Stromer&Stromer,1990b).Such
traininggivenbeforethecriticalclassformationproceduresensureddiscriminativecontrolbytheindividualsampleelementsandhasbeen
showntobroadenstimuluscontrolinpopulationswithdevelopmentaldisabilitiesusingredundantrelevantcueprocedures(e.g.,Schneider&
Salzberg,1982Smeets,Hoogeveen,Striefel,&Lancioni,1985cf.Dube,Kledaras,Iennaco,Stoddard,&McIlvane,1990Meisel,1981).
Thereareseveralwaysinwhichtheformationofstimulusclassesmighthaveoccurredintheforegoingstudies.Subjectsmayhavetreatedthe
sampleandcomparisonelementsasseparateentitiesduringtrainingandpriortothetests.Ifso,onepossibilityisthatsubjectscouldhave
basedtheircomparisonselectionsondifferentelementsondifferenttrials.OnsomeABDtrials,forexample,thesubjectmighthavematched
theAstimulitotheDstimuliandonothersBtoD.EmergentrelationsinvolvingtheAandBelements,andanyotherrelationsthatdepended
ontheestablishmentoftheserelations,couldhavecomeaboutinthestandardway(i.e.,ADandBDyieldAB).Themostimportantfeatureof
thisinterpretationisthattheemergentperformancesmayhavecomeaboutinexactlythesamemannerasinstandardmatchingproceduresfor
producingstimulusequivalence.
AsecondpossibilityincludesanimportantroleforsampleelementcontiguityontrialssuchasABD.Forexample,thesubjectcouldhave
basedcomparisonselectionsononepairofthesampleelements,alwaysmatchingtheBtoDstimuli,perhaps.TheAsampleelementsmight
thenhaveacquiredstimuluscontrolthroughcontiguitywiththeBelements,yielding,inturn,theADrelations(i.e.,BDandAByieldAD).
Therefore,thecontiguityofsampleelementsmayhavesufficedtoestablishrelationsamongthoseelementsandtheirrespectivecomparisons.
DelayedIdentityMatchingtoComplexSamples
Thepossibilitythatstimuluscontiguitymightengenderstimulusrelationsreceivessupportfromourrecentstudiesofdelayedidentitymatching
withcomplexsamples(Maguire,1992Stromer&Mackay,1992,1993).Unliketheprecedingexperiments,thesedelayprocedurescontained
contingenciesthatencouragedbroadstimuluscontroltoobtainallofthereinforcersavailableinasessionrequireddiscriminativecontrolby
eachsampleelementoneverytrial(Maki,Riley,&Leith,1976Stromer&Mackay,1990).
Figure3illustratesthemethodsusedinonestudywithnormallycapablechildren(Maguire,1992).Trialsbeganwithacomplexsample
consistingofageometricformandaprintednonsenseword.Aftertouchingthesampleitdisappearedandimmediatelythereafterapairof
formsorprintedwordsappearedascomparisons.Selectionoftheformorprintedwordidenticaltothatintheprecedingsamplewasreinforced.
ThechildrenfirstlearneddelayedmatchingwithA1B1andA2B2assamples.OneachtrialthecomparisonsetwaseitherA1andA2,orB1
andB2,eachsetpresentedunsystematically.Selectionofthepositivecomparisonwaspossibleonlyifthesubjectrememberedboththeform
andtheprintedwordelementsofthesample.Suchtrainingengenderedarbitraryrelationsamongthesampleelements,verifiedbytestsofAB
andBAmatching.Next,traininginvolvedthecomplexsamplesA1C1andA2C2.Herethesamplesconsistedofthesameformelementsbut
differentprintedwordelements.TheinferenceofstimulusclasseswassupportedbytheemergenceofBCandCBrelations.Maguire's
findingssuggestthatsampleelementcontiguityandthedelayedmatchingcontingenciesfosterattentiontobothsampleelementsandthereby
establishstimulusclassesamongthoseelements.TheseresultssuggesttheimportanceofcontiguityofelementsintheemergenceofBCand
CBrelations.
Thegeneralityofthesefindingswasshowninstudieswithstudentswhohavespecificlearningdisabilitiesandmildtomoderatemental
retardation(Stromer&Mackay,1992,1993).However,likesomeofourcollegestudents,individualswhohaveintellectualdisabilitiesmay
exhibitrestrictedstimuluscontrolindelayedmatchingwithcomplexsamples(Stromer,Mcllvane,Dube,&Mackay,1993).Although
reinforcementismaximizedifsubjectsobserveandrememberbothelementsofthecomplexsamples,somesubjectsdonotdosothus,they
donotformstimulusclasses(cf.Allen&Fuqua,1985Burke,1991Burke&Cerniglia,1990Huguenin,1985Schreibman,Charlop,&Koegel,
1982).
Freshapproachestotheproblemofbroadeningstimuluscontrolthatiscurrentlyrestrictedmightcomefromcarefulscrutinyofstudiesin
Pavlovianconditioningpreparations(e.g.,Balsam,1988Mackintosh,1974Rescorla,1988Rescorla&Wagner,1972Trapold&Overmier,
1972).Inthatwork,therehasbeenconsiderabletheorizingaboutthevariablesthatdeterminewhetherelementsofcomplexstimuliacquire
discriminativecontrolofbehavior.Variablesthathavebeenconsideredinclude:(a)thepastconditioninghistoryoftheelements,(b)their
similaritytootherelementswithconditioninghistories,(c)thedegreetowhichtheelementsarecorrelatedwithreinforcementand/orchangesin
reinforcementtype,schedule,andmagnitude,and(d)thestimulusinrelationtothecapabilitiesandpreferencesofthesubject(salience).Such
variablesmayfacilitatetheestablishmentofcontrolbytheelementsofcomplexstimuliand,inturn,thebasisforstimulusclasses.
Ourdelayedmatchingmethodsaresimilartoproceduresusedtostudyattentionandmemoryprocessesinnormallycapableadults(Baron&
Menich,1985Lindsay,Taylor,&Forbes,1968Sternberg,1966,1969)andnonhumans(D'Amato&Salmon,1984Maki&Leith,1973Maki&
Leuin,1972Makietal.,1976Riley,1984Riley&Roitblat,1978).Thedataobtainedfromthesestudiesmightalsoclarifyprocessesthat
contributetotheemergenceofnewbehaviorincomplexsampleprocedures.
SecondOrderArbitraryMatchingtoSample
Inourdelayedmatchingproceduresreinforcementwasmaximizedifeachoftheindividualelementsofthecomplexsamplesexercised
discriminativecontrol.Secondordermatchingalsousescomplexsamples.Insecondordermatching,however,thecontingenciesrequire
discriminativecontrolbyaparticularcombinationofelementsofthecomplexsamples.Acomprehensiveaccountofequivalencephenomena
shouldalsoincludeaconsiderationofsecondordermatching(Sidman,1986).
Figure4illustratesproceduresusedinSerna's(1991a,1991b)recentstudiesofsecondordermatchingwithnormallycapableadults.Ininitial
training,theselectionofacomparisonisconditionaluponatwoelementcomplexsample.WhenthesamplesareA1B1andA1B2,selectingC1
andC2arereinforced,respectively.ThesesamplecomparisonrelationsarereversedwhenthesampleincludeselementA2:ifA2B1,select
C2ifA2B2,selectC1.
Onestudyexaminedwhethertheelementsofthecomplexsamplesandthecomparisonstimuliwereinterchangeableforoneanother(Serna,
1991a).Hefoundthatsubjects'performanceswerenotimpairedwhentesttrialsdisplayedA1andA2ascomparisonsandB1C1,B1C2,B2C1,
orB2C2assamples.Thestimuliwereinterchangeablewithineachoffoursets:A1B1C1,A1B2C2,A2B1C2,andA2B2C1.Thisfindingis
similartothatdemonstratedinstandardtestsofsymmetry(Sidman,Rauzin,Lazar,Cunningham,Tailby,&Carrigan,1982Stromer&Osborne,
1982Wetherby,Karlan,&Spradlin,1983).
Afollowupstudyassessedwhethertheelementsofthecomplexsamplescouldbereplacedwithotherstimuli(Serna,1991b).Figure4shows
thatA1andA2wereusedassamplesandbecamerelatedtoadifferentsetofcomparisonstimuli,D1andD2,respectively,throughstandard
matchingtraining.IftheDstimuliwereequivalenttotheAstimuli,thentheDstimulishouldbesubstitutableinthecontextofthecomplex
sampletrials.ThetestresultswerepositiveandincludedtrialtypesinwhichthesamplesD1B1andD2B2controlledselectionsofC1,and
D1B2andD2B1controlledselectionsofC2.Additionaltests(notshown)alsoshowedthattheDstimulifunctionedinsampleandcomparison
positionsoriginallyoccupiedbyBandCstimuli.
Howdowedescribethenatureofthestimuluscontrolinsecondordermatching?Sidman(1986)suggestsahierarchicalaccountinvolving
conditionalorcontextualcontroloverstandardmatchingtosample.InSerna'sstudies,forexample,A1mightbeviewedasacontextual
stimulusthatcontrolsB1C1andB2C2matchingperformancesA2isacontextualstimulusthatcontrolsB1C2andB2C1matching.The
performancesoccasionedbysecondordermatchingprocedurescouldbeviewedasrepresentingequivalencerelationsthatareunder
contextualcontrol(cf.Bush,Sidman,&deRose,1989Gatch&Osborne,1989Kennedy&Laitinen,1988Lynch&Green,1991Serna,1987
Wulfert&Hayes,1988).
Serna'sdata,however,areinconsistentwithsuchahierarchicalperspective(seealsoMarkham&Dougher,inpress).Ahierarchicalview
assumesthatthecontextualstimulicannotfunctionasmembersoftheequivalenceclassesoverwhichtheyexertdiscriminativecontrol.Ifthey
did,allofthestimuliinallclasseswouldcombineintooneclass(cf.Bushetal.,1989Sidman,1986).BecausethisdidnotoccurinSerna's
experiment,thehierarchicalaccountisnotsupported.How,then,doweaccountfortheclasslikeperformancesshownbythesubjectsin
Serna'sexperiments?
Asanalternative,secondordermatchingmightbeviewedastheformationofdiscriminativecontrolbycompoundstimuli.Accordingtothis
account,foreachtrialsomecombinationofsampleandcomparisonstimulimayfunctionasaunitarydiscriminativestimulus(Carter&Werner,
1978Cumming&Berryman,1965Sidman,1986).ThisaccountcanbeappliedtoSerna'sprocedureintwoways:First,thesampleelements
mayhavefunctionedascompoundstimuli:A1B1andA2B2controllingselectionsofC1,andA1B2andA2B1controllingselectionsofC2.
Second,thesamplesandcomparisonsmighthavefunctionedascompoundstimuli:A1B1C1andA2B2C1controllingselectionsofC1,and
A1B2C2andA2B1C2controllingselectionsofC2.
Astraditionallydefined,compoundstimuliareconsideredtobeinseparableentities(cf.Carter&Werner,1978Cumming&Berryman,1965).
Thus,ifmatchingwerebasedonsuchstimuluscompounds,performancewoulddeteriorateduringanytestconditioninwhichthesestimulus
arraysarealtered.TheinterchangeabilityandsubstitutabilityofstimulishownbySerna'ssubjectsduringtestingthusargueagainstatraditional
compoundstimulusaccountofsecondordermatching.
Theinadequacyoftheseaccountsleadsustoviewcompoundstimuluscontrolfromanewperspective.Pastdefinitionsofacompound
stimulusassumetheinseparabilityofthestimuluselements.Weproposethattheelementsareseparable.Aseparablecompoundstimulusis
distinguishedfromatraditionalcompoundstimulusinthatsubstitutionofelementscanoccur,withoutdegradingdiscriminativecontrol.Inthis
definition,nohierarchicalrelationsamongtheelementsareassumedallelementsarenecessaryforthemaintenanceofbehavior.Moreover,
certainstimuluselementsofseparablecompoundsmayservedifferentfunctionswithinsuchproceduresthosefunctionsmayalsotransferto
theotherelementswithintheseparablecompound.Hierarchicalrelationsinvolvingtheelementsmay,ofcourse,bedefinedbycertain
procedures(cf.Bushetal.,1989).However,thehierarchicalnatureofrelationsamongstimuliisnotacentralanddefiningcharacteristicof
separablecompoundstimuli.
Theconceptofseparablestimuluscompoundsisausefulframeworkforanalyzingthebehaviorthatemergesoncertaintestsinstimulus
equivalenceresearch,suchasthoseusedinSerna'ssecondordermatchingprocedure.Thus,forexample,A1,B1,andC1areviewedas
elementsofaseparablecompoundstimulus.ThejointpresenceoftheelementsA1,B1,andC1occasionsaresponsetowhicheverelementof
thecompoundisdisplayedasacomparisonstimulus.Moreover,anystimulusthatisshowntobeequivalenttoA1,B1,orC1couldbe
substitutedwithoutdisruptingperformance.
Theformationofcontrolbyseparablecompoundsmayalsoaccountforthestandardmatchingtosampleperformancesofhumans(cf.Sidman,
1986).Forexample,ABmatchingmayestablishthecompoundsA1B1andA2B2,andACmatchingthecompoundsA1C1andA2C2.The
phenomenonofequivalencethenpermitscontrolbythederivedcompoundsB1C1andB2C2becauseeachsharesarelationwithanother
stimulus,A1andA2,respectively.Viewedthisway,proceduresthatproducestandardmatchingtosampleasoutcomeperformances(e.g.,the
complexsamplemethodsdescribedearlier)mightreflectcontrolbyseparablecompounds.Controlbyseparablecompoundstimulimay
thereforebethebasiccontextinwhichstimulusequivalencerelationsemerge.
Beyonditsparticularrelevanceforanalyzingmatchingtosampleinhumans,theseparablecompoundnotionalsohasimplicationsforthestudy
ofconditionaldiscriminationlearninginnonhumans.Forexample,ThomasandSchmidt(1989)reporteddatashowingakindof
interchangeabilityamongstimuliinpigeons'conditionaldiscriminationperformance.Theauthorsnotedthatthedatachallengedahierarchical
accountandfavoredatraditionalcompoundstimulusexplanation.Forreasonsdiscussedpreviously,however,wesuggestthatthislatter
explanationisinadequateaswellandthatthenotionofaseparablecompoundmaybeabetteraccountoftheirfindings.Ifourproposalthat
equivalenceclassesarederivablefromseparablecompoundsiscorrect,thenThomasandSchmidt'sproceduremaybeofvaluetoresearchers
insearchoftheformationofsuchclassesinnonhumanspecies(cf.D'Amato,Salmon,Loukas,&Tomie,1985Sidmanetal.,1982).
References
ALLEN,K.D.,&FUQUA,R.W.(1985).Eliminatingselectivestimuluscontrol:Acomparisonoftwoproceduresforteachingmentallyretarded
childrentorespondtocompoundstimuli.JournalofExperimentalChildPsychology,39,5571.
BALSAM,P.D.(1988).Selection,representation,andequivalenceofcontrollingstimuli.InR.C.Atkinson,R.J.Herrnstein,G.Lindzey,&R.D.
Luce(Eds.),Stevens'handbookofexperimentalpsychology(2nded.):Vol2.Learningandcognition(pp.111166).NewYork:Wiley.
BARON,A.,&MENICH,S.R.(1985).Reactiontimesofyoungerandoldermen:Effectsofcompoundsamplesandaprechoicesignalon
delayedmatchingtosampleperformances.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,44,114.
BICKEL,W.K.,STELLA,M.E.,&ETZEL,B.C.(1984).Areevaluationofstimulusoverselectivity:Restrictedstimuluscontrolorstimuluscontrol
hierarchies.JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,14,137157.
BUSH,K.M.,SIDMAN,M.,&DEROSE,T.(1989).Contextualcontrolofemergentequivalencerelations.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysis
ofBehavior,51,2945.
BURKE,J.C.(1991).Somedevelopmentalimplicationsofadisturbanceinrespondingtocomplexenvironmentalstimuli.AmericanJournalon
MentalRetardation,96,3752.
BURKE,J.C.,&CERNIGLIA,L.(1990).Stimuluscomplexityandautisticchildren'sresponsivity:Assessingandtrainingapivotalbehavior.
JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,20,233253.
CARTER,D.E.,&WERNER,T.J.(1978).Complexlearningandinformationprocessingbypigeons:Acriticalanalysis.Journalofthe
ExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,29,565601.
COLAVITA,F.B.(1974).Humansensorydominance.Perception&Psychophysics,16,409412.
CUMMING,W.W.,&BERRYMAN,R.(1965).Thecomplexdiscriminatedoperant:Studiesofmatchingtosampleandrelatedproblems.InD.I.
Mostofsky(Ed.),Stimulusgeneralization.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
D'AMATO,M.R.,&SALMON,D.P.(1984).Cognitiveprocessesincebusmonkeys.InH.L.Roitblat,T.G.Bever,&H.S.Terrace(Eds.),
Animalcognition.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
D'AMATO,M.R.,SALMON,D.P.,LOUKAS,E.,&TOMIE,A.(1985).Symmetryandtransitivityofconditionalrelationsinmonkeys(Cebus
apella)andpigeons(Columbalivia).JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,44,3547.
DUBE,W.V.(1991).ComputersoftwareforstimuluscontrolresearchwithMacintoshcomputers.ExperimentalAnalysisofBehaviorBulletin,9,
2830.
DUBE,W.V.,KLEDARAS,J.B.,IENNACO,F.M.,STODDARD,L.T.,&MCILVANE,W.J.(1990).Observingcomplexvisualstimuli:Effectsof
componentpretraining.ExperimentalAnalysisofHumanBehaviorBulletin,8,711.
DUBE,W.V.,&MCILVANE,W.J.(1989).Adaptingamicrocomputerforbehavioralevaluationofmentallyretardedindividuals.InJ.A.Mulick&
R.F.Antonak(Eds.),Transitionsinmentalretardation(Vol.4,pp.104127).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
FIELDS,L.,&VERHAVE,T.(1987).Thestructureofequivalenceclasses.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,48,317332.
FIELDS,L.,VERHAVE,T.,&FATH,S.(1984).Stimulusequivalenceandtransitiveassociations:Amethodologicalanalysis.Journalofthe
GATCH,M.B.,&OSBORNE,J.G.(1989).Transferofcontextualstimulusfunctionviaequivalenceclassdevelopment.Journalofthe
HUGUENIN,N.H.(1985).Attentiontomultiplecuesbyseverelymentallyretardedadults:Effectsofsinglecomponentpretraining.Applied
ResearchinMentalRetardation,6,319335.
KENNEDY,G.H.,&LAITINEN,R.(1988).Secondorderconditionalcontrolofsymmetricandtransitivestimulusrelations:Theinfluenceof
ordereffects.ThePsychologicalRecord,38,437446.
LINDSAY,P.H.,TAYLOR,M.M.,&FORBES,S.M.(1968).Attentionandmultidimensionaldiscrimination.PerceptionandPsychophysics,4,
113117.
LITROWNIK,A.J.,MCINNIS,E.T.,WETZELPRITCHARD,A.M.,&FILIPELLI,D.L.(1978).Restrictedstimuluscontrolandinferredattentional
deficitsinautisticandretardedchildren.JournalofAbnormalPsychology,87,554562.
LOVAAS,O.I.,SCHREIBMAN,L.,KOEGEL,R.L.,&REHM,R.(1971).Selectiverespondingbyautisticchildrentomultiplesensoryinput.
JournalofAbnormalPsychology,77,211222.
LYNCH,D.C.,&GREEN,G.(1991).Developmentandcrossmodaltransferofcontextualcontrolofequivalencerelations.Journalofthe
MACKAY,H.A.(1991).Stimulusequivalence:Implicationsforthedevelopmentofadaptivebehavior.InR.Remington(Ed.),Thechallengeof
severementalhandicap:Anappliedbehaviouranalyticapproach.London,England:JohnWiley&Sons.
MACKINTOSH,N.J.(1974).Thepsychologyofanimallearning.NewYork:AcademicPress.
MAGUIRE,R.W.(1992).Theformationofstimulusclassesviamatchingtosampletrainingwithcomplexsamples.Unpublisheddissertation,
NortheasternUniversity,Boston,MA.
MAKI,W.S.,JR.,&LEITH,C.R.(1973).Sharedattentioninpigeons.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,19,345349.
MAKI,W.S.,JR.,&LEUIN,T.C.(1972).Informationprocessingbypigeons.Science,176,535536.
MAKI,W.S.,JR.,RILEY,D.A.,&LEITH,C.R.(1976).Theroleofteststimuliinmatchingtocompoundsamplesbypigeons.AnimalLearning
&Behavior,4,1321.
MARKHAM,M.R.,&DOUGHER,M.J.(inpress).Compoundstimuliinemergentstimulusrelations:Extendingthescopeofstimulus
equivalence.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior.
MCILVANE,W.J.(1992).Stimuluscontrolanalysisandnonverbalinstructionalmethodsforpeoplewithintellectualdisabilities.InN.W.Bray
(Ed.),Internationalreviewofresearchinmentalretardation(Vol.18,pp.55109).NewYork:AcademicPress.
MEISEL,C.J.(1981).Stimulusoverselectivitybymentallyretardedadolescents:Effectsofpretrainingoncueidentification.AmericanJournal
ofMentalDeficiency,86,317322.
POSNER,M.I.,NISSEN,M.J.,&KLEIN,R.M.(1976).Visualdominance:Aninformationprocessingaccountofitsoriginsandsignificance.
PsychologicalReview,83,157171.
RANDICH,A.,KLEIN,R.M.,&LOLORDO,V.M.(1978).Visualdominanceinthepigeon.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,40,
129137.
RESCORLA,R.A.(1988).Pavlovianconditioning:It'snotwhatyouthinkitis.AmericanPsychologist,43,151160.
RESCORLA,R.A.,&WAGNER,A.R.(1972).AtheoryofPavlovianconditioning:Variationsintheeffectivenessofreinforcementand
nonreinforcement.InA.H.Black&W.F.Prokasy(Eds.),ClassicalconditioningII.NewYork:AppletonCenturyCrofts.
REYNOLDS,G.S.(1961).Attentioninthepigeon.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,4,203208.
RILEY,D.A.(1984).Dopigeonsdecomposestimuluscompounds?InH.L.Roitblat,T.G.Bever,&H.S.Terrace(Eds.),Animalcognition(pp.
333350).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
RILEY,D.A.,&ROITBLAT,H.L.(1978).Selectiveattentionandrelatedcognitiveprocessesinpigeons.InS.H.Hulse,H.Fowler,&W.K.
Honig(Eds.),Cognitiveprocessesinanimalbehavior(pp.249276).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
SCHENK,J.J.(inpress).Emergentconditionaldiscriminationinchildren:Matchingtocompoundstimuli.TheQuarterlyJournalofExperimental
Psychology.
SCHNEIDER,H.C.,&SALZBERG,C.L.(1982).Stimulusoverselectivityinamatchtosampleparadigmbyseverelyretardedyouth.Analysis
andInterventioninDevelopmentalDisabilities,2,273304.
SCHREIBMAN,L.,CHARLOP,M.H.,&KOEGEL,R.L.(1982).Teachingautisticchildrentouseextrastimulusprompts.Journalof
ExperimentalChildPsychology,33,475491.
SERNA,R.W.(1987).Aninvestigationofthefivetermcontingencyandtheconditionalcontrolofequivalencerelations.DissertationAbstracts
International,48,2126B.(OrderNo.DA8719451)
SERNA,R.W.(1991a).Interchangeabilityofstimulustermsinfivetermcontingencies.ExperimentalAnalysisofHumanBehaviorBulletin,9,2
3.
SERNA,R.W.(1991b).Interchangeabilityofstimulustermsinfivetermcontingencies.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheAssociationfor
BehaviorAnalysis,Atlanta,GA.
SIDMAN,M.(1986).Functionalanalysisofemergentverbalclasses.InT.Thompson&M.D.Zeiler(Eds.),Analysisandintegrationof
behavioralunits(pp.213245).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
SIDMAN,M.,RAUZIN,R.,LAZAR,R.,CUNNINGHAM,S.,TAILBY,W.,&CARRIGAN,P.(1982).Asearchforsymmetryintheconditional
discriminationsofrhesusmonkeys,baboons,andchildren.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,37,2344.
SIDMAN,M.,&TAILBY,W.(1982).Conditionaldiscriminationvs.matchingtosample:Anexpansionofthetestingparadigm.Journalofthe
SMEETS,P.M.,HOOGEVEEN,F.R.,STRIEFEL,S.,&LANCIONI,G.E.(1985).StimulusoverselectivityinTMRchildren:Establishing
functionalcontrolofsimultaneousmultiplestimuli.AnalysisandInterventioninDevelopmentalDisabilities,5,247267.
STERNBERG,S.(1966).Highspeedscanninginhumanmemory.Science,153,652654.
STERNBERG,S.(1969).Memoryscanning:Mentalprocessesrevealedbyreactiontimeexperiments.AmericanScientist,57,421457.
STROMER,R.(1991).Stimulusequivalence:Implicationsforteaching.InW.Ishaq(Ed.),Humanbehaviorintoday'sworld(pp.109122).New
York:Praeger.
STROMER,R.,&MACKAY,H.A.(1990).Arbitrarystimulusrelationsanddelayedidentitymatchingtocomplexsamples.ExperimentalAnalysis
ofHumanBehaviorBulletin,8,2225.
STROMER,R.,&MACKAY,H.A.(1992).Spellingandemergentpictureprintedwordrelationsestablishedwithdelayedidentitymatchingto
complexsamples.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,25,893904.
STROMER,R.,&MACKAY,H.A.(1993).Delayedidentitymatchingtocomplexsamples:Teachingstudentswithmentalretardationspelling
andtheprerequisitesforequivalenceclasses.ResearchinDevelopmentalDisabilities,14,1938.
STROMER,R.,MCILVANE,W.J.,DUBE,W.V.,&MACKAY,H.A.(1993).Assessingcontrolbyelementsofcomplexstimuliindelayed
matchingtosample.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,59,83102.
STROMER,R.,&OSBORNE,J.G.(1982).Controlofadolescents'arbitrarymatchingtosamplebypositiveandnegativestimulusrelations.
JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,37,329348.
STROMER,R.,&STROMER,J.B.(1990a).Theformationofarbitrarystimulusclassesinmatchingtocomplexsamples.ThePsychological
Record,40,5166.
STROMER,R.,&STROMER,J.B.(1990b).Matchingtocomplexsamples:Furtherstudyofarbitrarystimulusclasses.ThePsychological
Record,40,505516.
STROMER,R.,&STROMER,J.B.(1992).Formationofarbitrarystimulusclassesinmatchingtocomplexsamples:Supplementarydata.
PerceptualandMotorSkills,75,505506.
THOMAS,D.R.,&SCHMIDT,E.K.(1989).Doesconditionaldiscriminationlearningbypigeonsnecessarilyinvolvehierarchicalrelations?
JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,52,249260.
TRAPOLD,M.A.,&OVERMIER,J.B.(1972).Thesecondlearningprocessininstrumentallearning.InA.H.Black&W.F.Prokasy(Eds.),
ClassicalconditioningII:Currentresearchandtheory(pp.427452).NewYork:AppletonCenturyCrofts.
WARREN,J.M.(1953).Additivityofcuesinvisualpatterndiscriminationsbymonkeys.JournalofComparativeandPhysiologicalPsychology,
46,484486.
WETHERBY,B.,KARLAN,G.R.,&SPRADLIN,J.E.(1983).Thedevelopmentofderivedstimulusrelationsthroughtraininginarbitrary
matchingsequences.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,40,6978.
WILLIAMS,B.A.(1984).Stimuluscontrolandassociativelearning.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,42,469483.
WULFERT,E.,&HAYES,S.C.(1988).Transferofconditionalorderingresponsethroughconditionalequivalenceclasses.Journalofthe
PreparationofthismanuscriptwassupportedbytheNationalInstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopment(GrantHD25995)andbythe
DepartmentofMentalRetardationoftheCommonwealthofMassachusetts(ContractNo.100220023SC).Thisarticleisbasedonapaper
presentedattheFifteenthSymposiumonQuantitativeAnalysesofBehavior:StimulusRelations,June1992,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge.
WethankBillDubeandHarryMackayfortheirhelpfulcommentsonthemanuscript.RequestsforreprintsshouldbesenttoRobertStromer,
BehavioralSciencesDivision,EuniceKennedyShriverCenter,200TrapeloRoad,Waltham,MA02254.
COPYRIGHT1993ThePsychologicalRecord
Copyright1993Gale,CengageLearning.Allrightsreserved.

Complex Stimulus Control and Equivalence

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Complex Stimulus Control and Equivalence

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

18/04/2017 Complexstimuluscontrolandequivalence.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi