Manual-Observing Procedure: an Alternative to the Investigation of Stimulus Control and Equivalence Classes in Matching-to-Sample

  • Paulo Sérgio Dillon Soares-FilhoEmail author
  • Lígia Mosolino de Carvalho
  • Eliana Isabel de Moraes Hamasaki
  • Heloísa Cursi Campos
  • William Ferreira Perez
  • Erik Arntzen
  • Gerson Yukio Tomanari
Original Article


This experiment presents a manual-observing procedure as an inexpensive alternative for investigating stimulus control and establishing equivalence classes in a matching-to-sample task (MTS). To illustrate the procedure, we evaluated the effects of different MTS training structures on observing responses and equivalence class formation. Participants had to press a button below each covered sample and comparison stimuli to reveal the stimulus. Four participants were exposed to two different sequences of the many-to-one (MTO) and one-to-many (OTM) procedures, using the manual-observing procedure during training and testing. The results showed that the manual-observing procedure allowed participants to acquire conditional discriminations and form equivalence classes, suggesting that the use of manual-observing responses in an MTS procedure is a useful procedure to evaluate stimulus control in an MTS task.


Manual-observing responses Matching-to-sample Equivalence class Training structures 



This research was supported by a Doctoral scholarship to Paulo S. D. Soares-Filho (CAPES) and University of San Buenaventura Institutional Research Grant (2018), William F. Perez and Heloísa C. Campos (FAPESP) and Eliana I. M. Hamasaki (CNPq); scientific initiation scholarship to Lígia M. de Carvalho (CNPq/INCT-ECCE); and a Research Productivity Grant (CNPq) to Gerson Y. Tomanari. Paulo S. D. Soares Filho, William F. Perez, Heloísa C. Campos, Eliana I. M. Hamasaki, Lígia M. de Carvalho and Gerson Y. Tomanari are members of the National Institute of Science and Technology on Behavior, Cognition, and Teaching, supported by FAPESP (grant no. 08/57705-8) and CNPq (grant no. 573972/2008-7).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The ethics committee of the Psychology Institute at the University of São Paulo approved all procedures used in this experiment (#14026913.2.0000.5561).

Informed Consent

The participation in this experiment was completely voluntary and an informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and subsequent performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60 , 437–462.Google Scholar
  2. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (1997). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design. The Psychological Record, 47(2), 309–320. Scholar
  3. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (2000). Equivalence outcome in single subjects as a function of training structure. The Psychological Record, 50 , 603–628.Google Scholar
  4. Ayres Pereira, V., & Arntzen, E. (2018). Effect of presenting baseline probes during or after emergent relations tests on equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record.
  5. Carrigan, P. F., & Sidman, M. (1992). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58(1), 183–204. Scholar
  6. Dinsmoor, J. A. (1983). Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 6(4), 693. Scholar
  7. Dinsmoor, J. A. (1985). The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43 , 365–381. Scholar
  8. Dinsmoor, J. A., Mueller, K. L., Martin, L. T., & Bowe, C. A. (1982). The acquisition of observing. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38(3), 249–263. Retrieved from Scholar
  9. Dube, W. V., Balsamo, L. M., Fowler, T. R., Dickson, C. A., Lombard, K. M., & Tomanari, G. Y. (2006). Observing behavior topography in delayed matching to multiple samples. Psychological Record, 56(2), 233–244 Retrieved from Scholar
  10. Dube, W. V., Lombard, K. M., Farrem, K. M., Flusser, D. S., Balsamo, L. M., Fowler, T. R., & Tomanari, G. Y. (2003). Stimulus overselectivity and observing behavior in individuals with mental retardation. In S. Soraci & K. Murata-Soraci (Eds.), Visual information processing (pp. 109–123). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  11. Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1999). Reduction of stimulus overselectivity with nonverbal differential observing responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(1), 25–33. Scholar
  12. Fantino, E., & Silberberg, A. (2010). Revisiting the role of bad news in maintaining human observing behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93 , 157–170. Scholar
  13. Farber, R. S., Dickson, C. A., & Dube, W. V. (2017). Reducing overselective stimulus control with differential observing responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(1), 87–105. Scholar
  14. Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48(2), 317–332. Scholar
  15. Hamasaki, E. I. M. (2009). Respostas de observação na tarefa de pareamento ao modelo: analisando topografias de controle de estímulos e seus efeitos sobre a formação de equivalência. São Paulo, Brazil: Universidade de São Paulo. Retrieved from
  16. Hansen, S., & Arntzen, E. (2015). Fixating, attending, and observing: A behavior analytic eye-movement analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 1149(February), 229–247. Scholar
  17. Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (2000). Reaction times and the emergence of class consistent responding: A case for precurrent responding? The Psychological Record, 50 , 305–337.Google Scholar
  18. Hove, O. (2003). Differential probability of equivalence class formation following a one-to-many versus a many-to-one training structure. The Psychological Record, 53(4), 617–634. Scholar
  19. Huziwara, E. M., De Souza, G., & Tomanari, G. Y. (2016). Patterns of eye movement in matching-to-sample tasks. Psicologia: Reflexão E Crítica, 29(1), 1–10. Scholar
  20. Perez, W. F., Tomanari, G. Y., & Vaidya, M. (2015). Effects of select and reject control on equivalence class formation and transfer of function. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104(2), 146–166. Scholar
  21. Sadeghi, P., & Arntzen, E. (2018). Eye-movements, training structures, and equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 68, 461–476.
  22. Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training-structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72(1), 117–137. Scholar
  23. Saunders, R. R., & McEntee, J. E. (2004). Increasing the probability of stimulus equivalence with adults with mild mental retardation. The Psychological Record, 54(3), 423–435. Scholar
  24. Schroeder, S., & Holland, J. G. (1968). Operant control of eye movements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(2), 161–166. Scholar
  25. Shahan, T. A. (2010). Conditioned reinforcement and response strength. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93(2), 269–289. Scholar
  26. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative Retrieved from Scholar
  27. Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005). Establishing equivalence classes in preschool children with one-to-many and many-to-one training protocols. Behavioural Processes, 69(3), 281–293. Scholar
  28. Steingrimsdottir, H. S., & Arntzen, E. (2016). Eye movements during conditional discrimination training. The Psychological Record, 66(2), 201–212. Scholar
  29. Tomanari, G. Y. (2009). Resposta de observação: Uma reavaliação. Acta Comportamentalia, 17(3), 259–277.Google Scholar
  30. Tomanari, G. Y., & Capócio, V. (2008). Match! São Paulo, SP: Laboratório de Análise Experimental do Comportamento do Instituto de Psicologia da Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar
  31. Urcuioli, P. J., Zentall, T. R., & DeMarse, T. (1995). Transfer to derived sample-comparison relations by pigeons following many-to-one versus one-to-many matching with identical training relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(2), 158–178. Scholar
  32. Walpole, C. W., Roscoe, E. M., & Dube, W. V. (2007). Use of a differential observing response to expand restricted stimulus control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(4), 707–712. Scholar
  33. Williams, B. A. (1994). Conditioned reinforcement: Experimental and theoretical issues. The Behavior Analyst, 17(2), 261–285.Google Scholar
  34. Wyckoff, L. B. (1952). The role of observing responses in discrimination learning—Part I. Psychological Review, 59, 431–442.Google Scholar
  35. Wyckoff, L. B. (1969). The role of observing responses in discrimination learning. In D. P. Hendry (Ed.), Conditioned reinforcement (pp. 237–260). Homewood: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Sérgio Dillon Soares-Filho
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lígia Mosolino de Carvalho
    • 1
  • Eliana Isabel de Moraes Hamasaki
    • 3
  • Heloísa Cursi Campos
    • 1
    • 4
  • William Ferreira Perez
    • 1
    • 5
  • Erik Arntzen
    • 6
  • Gerson Yukio Tomanari
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Psychology, University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.University of San Buenaventura, BogotáBogotáColombia
  3. 3.University 9 de Julho, São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Arkansas State UniversityJonesboroUSA
  5. 5.Paradigma—Centro de Ciências do ComportamentoSão PauloBrazil
  6. 6.Oslo Metroplitan UniversityOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations