Advertisement

Effect of Rapid Responding on Establishment of Conditional Discriminations and Formation of Equivalence Classes

  • Erik ArntzenEmail author
  • Kim Henrik Liland
Original Article

Abstract

Five adults served as participants in the present experiment, which aimed to study the establishment of conditional discriminations and the formation of equivalence classes with a restricted time window for responding. Prior to the conditional discrimination training the participants were trained in fast responding. This preliminary training was arranged with identity matching of colors in which a limited hold (LH) to sample and comparison was titrated to an asymptotic value of fast responding. The limited hold to the sample ranged from asymptotic values of 400 ms to 700 ms and to the comparison ranged the asymptotic values from 800 ms to 1100 ms. In the conditional-discrimination training, the value of the LH was tailored to each participant’s asymptotic value in the preliminary training plus 200 ms. None of the five participants established the conditional discriminations. Therefore, in the next phase, the LH was titrated upward until the participants established the conditional discriminations. The main findings were that four of the five participants responded in accordance with stimulus equivalence.

Keywords

Stimulus equivalence Preliminary training Limited hold Asymptotic value Adults 

Notes

Funding

This research was funded by Oslo Metropolitan University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Arntzen, E. (2004). Probability of equivalence formation: Familiar stimuli and training sequence. The Psychological Record, 54, 275–291.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arntzen, E. (2006). Delayed matching to sample and stimulus equivalence: Probability of responding in accord with equivalence as a function of different delays. The Psychological Record, 56, 135–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and the subsequent performance on the tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60, 437–462.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arntzen, E., & Hansen, S. (2011). Training structures and the formation of equivalence classes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 483–503.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arntzen, E., & Haugland, S. (2012). Titration of limited hold to comparison in conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 62, 243–262 Retrieved from http://thepsychologicalrecord.siuc.edu/index.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (1997). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design. The Psychological Record, 47, 309–320.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arntzen, E., & Lian, T. (2010). Trained and derived relations with pictures as nodes. The Psychological Record, 60, 659–677.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentall, R. P., Dickins, D. W., & Fox, S. R. A. (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies for emergent relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 46B, 187–214.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401085.Google Scholar
  9. Bentall, R. P., Jones, R. M., & Dickins, D. W. (1998). Errors and response latencies as a function of nodal distance in 5-member equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 49, 93–115. Retrieved from http://thepsychologicalrecord.siuc.edu/index.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catania, A. C. (1973). The concept of the operant in the analysis of behavior. Behaviorism, 1, 103–116 Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/27758804?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.Google Scholar
  11. Catania, A. C., Shimoff, E., & Matthews, B. A. (1989). An experimental analysis of rule-governed behavior. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 119–150). New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chase, P. N. (1996). The orgins of naming: a critique of self-listening. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 293–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2001). Supplemental measures and derived stimulus relations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 19, 8–12 Retrieved from http://www.eahb.org/NewSitePages/BulletinHomepage.htm.Google Scholar
  14. Eilifsen, C., & Arntzen, E. (2009). On the role of trial types in tests for stimulus equivalence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 187–202 Retrieved from http://www.ejoba.org/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Verhave, T., & Newman, S. (1993). Are stimuli in equivalence classes equally related to each other? The Psychological Record, 43, 85–105 Retrieved from http://thepsychologicalrecord.siuc.edu/.Google Scholar
  16. Fields, L., Landon-Jimenez, D. V., Buffington, D. M., & Adams, B. J. (1995). Maintained nodal-distance effects in equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 129–145.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1995.64-129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, G. A., & Chase, P. N. (1991). The relationship between stimulus equivalence and verbal behavior. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 81–110.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (2000). Reaction times and the emergence of class consistent responding: A case for precurrent responding? The Psychological Record, 50, 305–338 Retrieved from http://thepsychologicalrecord.siuc.edu/index.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Imam, A. A. (2001). Speed contingencies, number of stimulus presentations, and the nodality effect in equivalence formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 265–288.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.76-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Imam, A. A. (2003). Assessing transfer of response speed and nodality via conditional discriminations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 21, 1–7 Retrieved from http://www.eahb.org/NewSitePages/BulletinHomepage.htm.Google Scholar
  22. Mandell, C. (1997). Stimulus equivalence and meaning. The influence of verbal behavior. In C. Mandell & A. McCabe (Eds.), The problem of meaning behavioral and cognitive perspectives (pp. 81–116). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salthouse, T. A., & Ellis, C. L. (1980). Determinants of eye-fixation duration. American Journal of Psychology, 93, 207–234.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1422228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saunders, R. R., Chaney, L., & Marquis, J. G. (2005). Equivalence class establishment with two-, three-, and four-choice matching to sample by senior citizens. The Psychological Record, 55, 539–559 Retrieved from http://thepsychologicalrecord.siuc.edu/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 207–220.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1981.36-207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  27. Spencer, T. J., & Chase, P. N. (1996). Speed analysis of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1996.65-643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tomanari, G. Y., Sidman, M., Rubio, A. R., & Dube, W. V. (2006). Equivalence classes with requirements for short response latencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 349–369.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2006.107-04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125–144.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.50-125.

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Behavioral ScienceOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital TrustTønsbergNorway

Personalised recommendations