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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Arntzen, E. (2004). Probability of equivalence formation: Familiar stimuli and training sequence. The Psychological Record, 54, 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395474.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dixon M. R. (2014a). Peak Relational Training System: Direct Training Module. Shawnee Scientific Press.
Dixon M. R. (2014b). Peak Relational Training System: Generalization Module. Shawnee Scientific Press.
Dixon, M. R. (2015). PEAK equivalence module. Shawnee Scientific Press.
Dixon, M. R. (2016). PEAK transformation module. Shawnee Scientific Press.
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.
Dixon, M. R., & Paliliunas, D. (2018). Accept. Identify. Move. Shawnee Scientific Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hayes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Springer Science & Business Media.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Relational frame theory and analogical reasoning: Empirical investigations. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, 241–262.
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.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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
- relational frame theory
- relational density theory