Premium
A TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS THROUGH DERIVED ARBITRARY AND NONARBITRARY STIMULUS RELATIONS
Author(s) -
Barnes Dermot,
Keenan Michael
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-61
Subject(s) - discriminative model , reinforcement , stimulus control , stimulus (psychology) , psychology , discrimination learning , equivalence (formal languages) , schedule , audiology , cognitive psychology , pattern recognition (psychology) , speech recognition , artificial intelligence , computer science , mathematics , social psychology , neuroscience , medicine , discrete mathematics , nicotine , operating system
During Experiments 1 and 2, subjects were trained in a series of related conditional discriminations in a matching‐to‐sample format (A1‐B1, A1‐C1 and A2‐B2, A2‐C2). A low‐rate performance was then explicitly trained in the presence of B1, and a high‐rate performance was explicitly trained in the presence of B2. The two types of schedule performance transferred to the C stimuli for all subjects in both experiments, in the absence of explicit reinforcement through equivalence (i.e., C1 / low rate and C2 = high rate). In Experiment 2, it was also shown that these discriminative functions transferred from the C1‐C2 stimuli to two novel stimuli that were physically similar to the C stimuli (SC1 and SC2, respectively). For both these experiments, subjects demonstrated the predicted equivalence responding during matching‐to‐sample equivalence tests. In Experiments 3 and 4, the conditional discrimination training from the first two experiments was modified in that two further conditional discrimination tasks were trained (C1‐D1 and C2‐D2). However, for these tasks the D stimuli served only as positive comparisons, and ND1 and ND2 stimuli served as negative comparisons (i.e., C1 × ND1 and C2 × ND2). Subsequent to training, the negatively related stimuli (ND1 and ND2) did not become discriminative for the schedule performances explicitly trained in the presence of B1 and B2, respectively. Instead, the ND1 stimulus became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B2, and ND2 became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B1. All subjects from Experiment 4 showed that the novel stimulus SND1, which was physically similar to ND1, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND1. Similarly, SND2, which was physically similar to ND2, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND2. Subjects from both Experiments 3 and 4 also produced equivalence responding on matching‐to‐sample equivalence tests that corresponded perfectly to the derived performances shown on the transfer of discriminative control tests.