traksoli.blogg.se

Follow-up tests then assessed relations AD, DA, AE, EA, AF, FA, BD, DB, BE, EB, BF, FB, CD, DC, CE, EC, CF, FC, thus probing for merger of the classes linked by the common reinforcers. The data showed that training gave rise to three ABC classes (A1B1C1, A2B2C2, and A3B3C3) and three DEF classes (D1E1F1, D2E2F2, and D3E3F3). Following the acquisition of the 12 conditional discriminations, non-reinforced probe trials assessed the emergence of symmetry (relations BA, CA, FD, and FE), transitivity (BC and DF), and equivalence (CB and FD). On training trials for relations A2B2, A2C2, D2F2, and E2F2 and, separately, A3B3, A3C3, D3F3, and E3F3 the reinforcers were Sr2 and Sr3, respectively. Selections on trials that established the A1B1, A1C1, D1F1, and E1F1 relations were reinforced by Sr1. For instance, Johnson, Meleshkevich and Dube ( 2014) trained typical adults with the conditional discriminations A1B1, A2B2, A3B3, A1C1, A2C2, A3C3, D1F1, D2F2, D3F3, E1F1, E2F2, and E3F3. It is also possible to train conditional discriminations using class-specific reinforcers. In this case, the meaning of the abstract stimuli (measured by instruments such as the Semantic Differential Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) approaches the meaning of the equivalent facial expressions, which sometimes is designated as transfer of meaning (e.g., Silveira, Aggio, Cortez, Bortoloti, Rico & de Rose, 2016). This outcome, often said to reflect transfer of functions, has also been shown in experiments in which pictures of facial expressions depicting emotional responses with phylogenetic relevance become equivalent to abstract stimuli (Bortoloti & de Rose, 2007, 2009, 2011 Bortoloti, Rodrigues, Cortez, Pimentel, & de Rose, 2013). This phenomenon is found for several functions of stimuli, such as simple discriminative functions (de Rose, McIlvane, Dube, Galpin, & Stoddard, 1988 de Rose, McIlvane, Dube, & Stoddard, 1988 Fields, Adams, Verhave & Newman, 1993 Fields, Landon-Jimenez, Buffington, & Adams, 1995), self-discriminative functions (Dymond & Barnes, 1994) ordinal properties (Mackay, Stoddard & Spencer, 1989 Wulfert & Hayes, 1988), eliciting functions (Dougher, Augustson, Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994). The stimuli in each class are substitutable for one another.įollowing equivalence class formation, it becomes possible to demonstrate that other class members perform the stimulus functions trained to one class member without further training. These emergent performances allow the inference that two classes of equivalent stimuli have formed, one containing A1, B1, and C1, the other A2, B2, and C2 (Arntzen, 2012 Sidman, 1994, 2000 Sidman & Tailby, 1982). To illustrate this, after training that establishes the relations A1B1, A2B2, B1C1, and B2C2, human participants are likely also to respond in accordance with symmetry by demonstrating relations B1A1, B2A2, C1B1, and C2B2, transitivity (A1C1 and A2C2), and equivalence (C1A1 and C2A2). Under some circumstances, however, participants may demonstrate additional performances that were not trained directly. These contingencies produce relations A1B1 and A2B2, respectively. For example, training may use points as reinforcers following selections of stimulus B1 rather than stimulus B2 in the presence of sample A1, and B2 rather than B1 in the presence of sample A2. This non-specific reinforcement procedure is used to train conditional discriminations that establish relations between sample and comparison stimuli. The selections are made from displays of two or more comparison stimuli.

Matching-to-sample (MTS) performances are usually established by making a single type of reinforcer (e.g., a point, a type of food, a token) contingent upon selection, on each trial, of the comparison stimulus designated as correct by the experimenter. This finding is considered as a demonstration that class-specific outcomes can mediate class merger phenomena and the transfer of functions through members of merged classes.

The results show that participants’ evaluations of the B and E stimuli were similar to evaluations of the A stimuli made by participants of a control group. Finally, participants did Semantic Differential ratings that tested whether the emotional valence of the A stimuli transferred to the arbitrary forms, B and E. Further tests then documented the merger of the classes and the emergence of SrB, SrC, SrE, and SrF relations, showing that the class-specific reinforcers were equivalence class members. After training, tests confirmed the formation of ABC and DEF equivalence classes. Correct responses resulted in presentations of class-specific reinforcers, Sr1, Sr2, and Sr3. The A stimuli were pictures of faces portraying emotional expressions the others were arbitrary forms. Seven participants received conditional discrimination training that established the 12 conditional relations A1B1, A2B2, A3B3, A1C1, A2C2, A3C3, D1E1, D2E2, D3E3, D1F1, D2F2, and D3F3.