Premium
A TRANSFER OF SELF‐DISCRIMINATION RESPONSE FUNCTIONS THROUGH EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS
Author(s) -
Dymond Simon,
Barnes Dermot
Publication year - 1994
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.1994.62-251
Subject(s) - reinforcement , psychology , stimulus (psychology) , schedule , equivalence (formal languages) , equivalence relation , stimulus control , discrimination learning , audiology , cognitive psychology , computer science , social psychology , mathematics , combinatorics , discrete mathematics , medicine , neuroscience , nicotine , operating system
The present study tested the idea that human self‐discrimination response functions may transfer through equivalence relations. Four subjects were trained in six symbolic matching‐to‐sample tasks (if see A1, choose B1; A1‐C1, A2‐B2, A2‐C2, A3‐B3, A3‐C3) and were then tested for the formation of three equivalence relations (B1‐C1, B2‐C2, B3‐C3). Two of the B stimuli (B1 and B2) were then used to train two different self‐discrimination responses using either detailed instructions (Subjects 1 to 3) or minimal instructions (Subject 4) on two complex schedules of reinforcement (i.e., subjects were trained to pick the B1 stimulus if they had not emitted a response, and to pick the B2 stimulus if they had emitted one or more responses on the previous schedule). All 4 subjects showed the predicted transfer of self‐discrimination response functions through equivalence relations (i.e., no response on the schedule, pick C1; one or more responses on the schedule, pick C2). Subjects also demonstrated this transfer when they were required to discriminate their schedule performance before exposure to the schedule (i.e., “what I intend to do”). Four control subjects were also used in the study. Two of these (Subjects 5 and 6) were not exposed to any form of matching‐to‐sample training and testing (nonequivalence controls). The 2 remaining subjects (7 and 8) were exposed to matching‐to‐sample training and testing that incorporated stimuli not used during the transfer test; C1 and C2 were replaced by N1 and N2 during the matching‐to‐sample training and testing, but C1 and C2 were used for the transfer tests (equivalence controls). All 4 subjects failed to produce the self‐discrimination transfer performances observed with the experimental subjects.