Skip to main content

Top-Down Attentional Processing and Relational Density Evident in Word Search Performance of Children

Abstract

Relational frame theory and extensions (e.g., relational density theory; Belisle & Dixon, 2020a, 2020b) provides a behavioral model for top–down attentional processing, where attention is oriented in terms of arbitrarily applicable verbal relations through the transformation of stimulus function. Children’s games may provide a strategy for testing transformations of stimulus function when developing new language skills, such as when working with children with autism. Three children with autism underwent relational training to establish lean and dense arbitrary classes. Prior-to relational training, participants were more likely to locate familiar words over unfamiliar words within a word-search task. Following relational training, participants were more likely to locate words that participated in high-density relational classes over neutral or low-density relational classes. These results support the use of common games to supplement relational training with children with autism and provide evidence that top–down attentional processing may involve transformations of stimulus function and can be predicted and influenced through relational training to establish high-density relational classes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (2000). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of class size vs. number of classes. The Psychological Record, 50, 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Smeets, P. M., Cullinan, V., & Leader, G. (2004). Relational frame theory and stimulus equivalence: Conceptual and procedural issues. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, 181–214.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belisle, J., & Dixon, M. R. (2020a). Relational density theory: Nonlinearity of equivalence relating examined through higher-order volumetric-mass-density. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43(2), 259–283.

  5. Belisle, J., & Dixon, M. R. (2020b). An exploratory analysis of relational density theory: Relational resistance and gravity. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 19, 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.01.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Belisle, J., Paliliunas, D., Lauer, T., Giamanco, A., Lee, B., & Sickman, E. (2020). Derived relational responding and transformations of function in children: A Review of applied behavior-analytic journals. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 36(1), 115–145.

  7. Clayton, M. C., & Hayes, L. J. (2004). A comparison of match-to-sample and respondent-type training of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 54, 579–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cook, J. L., Barbalat, G., & Blakemore, S. J. (2012). Top-down modulation of the perception of other people in schizophrenia and autism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00175.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Dickins, D. W., Singh, K. D., Roberts, N., Burns, P., Downes, J. J., Jimmieson, P., & Bentall, R. P. (2001). An fMRI study of stimulus equivalence. Neuroreport, 12, 405–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dixon M. R.  (2014a). Peak Relational Training System: Direct Training Module. Shawnee Scientific Press.

  11. Dixon M. R. (2014b). Peak Relational Training System: Generalization Module. Shawnee Scientific Press.

  12. Dixon, M. R. (2015). PEAK equivalence module. Shawnee Scientific Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dixon, M. R. (2016). PEAK transformation module. Shawnee Scientific Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., Whiting, S. W., & Rowsey, K. E. (2014). Normative sample of the PEAK relational training system: Direct training module and subsequent comparisons to individuals with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8, 1597–1606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.07.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dixon, M. R., & Paliliunas, D. (2018). Accept. Identify. Move. Shawnee Scientific Press.

  16. Dixon, M. R., Rowsey, K. E., Gunnarsson, K. F., Belisle, J., Stanley, C. R., & Daar, J. H. (2017). Normative sample of the PEAK relational training system: generalization module with comparison to individuals with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 26, 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-016-9261-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dixon, M. R., Speelman, R. C., Rowsey, K. E., & Belisle, J. (2016). Derived rule-following and transformations of stimulus function in a children's game: An application of PEAK-E with children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5, 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Verhave, T., & Newman, S. (1990). The effects of nodality on the formation of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 53, 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1990.53-345.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1987.48-317.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Gazzaley, A., & Nobre, A. C. (2012). Top-down modulation: bridging selective attention and working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gazzaley, A., Rissman, J., Cooney, J., Rutman, A., Seibert, T., Clapp, W., & D'Esposito, M. (2007). Functional interactions between prefrontal and visual association cortex contribute to top-down modulation of visual processing. Cerebral Cortex, 17, i125–i135. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Greenaway, R., & Plaisted, K. (2005). Top-down attentional modulation in autistic spectrum disorders is stimulus-specific. Psychological Science, 16, 987–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01648.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Springer Science & Business Media.

  24. Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Ruckstuhl, L. E., Jr. (1996). Relational frame theory and executive function: A behavioral approach. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (p. 279–305). Paul H Brookes.

  25. Hopfinger, J. B., Buonocore, M. H., & Mangun, G. R. (2000). The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/72999.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim, M. S., & Cave, K. R. (1999). Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: On the nature of interference from a salient distractor. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maekawa, T., Tobimatsu, S., Inada, N., Oribe, N., Onitsuka, T., Kanba, S., & Kamio, Y. (2011). Top-down and bottom-up visual information processing of non-social stimuli in high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.03.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ming, S., Moran, L., & Stewart, I. (2014). Derived relational responding and generative language: Applications and future directions for teaching individuals with autism spectrum disorders. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 15, 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2014.11434722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Derived more-less relational mands in children diagnosed with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-253.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Paliliunas, D., Belisle, J., Barron, B. F., & Dixon, M. R. (2021). Early hierarchical multiply controlled verbal relations evident in a game of “I-Spy” with children with autism. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Psychology Software Tools, Inc. [E-Prime 3.0]. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.pstnet.com.

  31. Rehfeldt, R. A., Dillen, J. E., Ziomek, M. M., & Kowalchuk, R. K. (2007). Assessing relational learning deficits in perspective-taking in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. The Psychological Record, 57, 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schlund, M. W., Cataldo, M. F., & Hoehn-Saric, R. (2008). Neural correlates of derived relational responding on tests of stimulus equivalence. Behavioral & Brain Functions, 4, 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-4-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shomstein, S., Lee, J., & Behrmann, M. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up attentional guidance: investigating the role of the dorsal and ventral parietal cortices. Experimental Brain Research, 206, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2326-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Stewart, I. (2018). Derived relational responding and relational frame theory: A fruitful behavior analytic paradigm for the investigation of human language. Behavior Analysis: Research & Practice, 18, 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Relational frame theory and analogical reasoning: Empirical investigations. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, 241–262.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Weissman, D. H., Mangun, G. R., & Woldorff, M. G. (2002). A role for top-down attentional orienting during interference between global and local aspects of hierarchical stimuli. NeuroImage, 17(3), 1266–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jordan Belisle.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional human subjects committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Belisle, J., Paliliunas, D., Stanley, C.R. et al. Top-Down Attentional Processing and Relational Density Evident in Word Search Performance of Children. Behav Analysis Practice (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00614-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • relational frame theory
  • relational density theory
  • autism
  • games