Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Manual-Observing Procedure: an Alternative to the Investigation of Stimulus Control and Equivalence Classes in Matching-to-Sample

Abstract

This experiment presents a manual-observing procedure as an inexpensive alternative for investigating stimulus control and establishing equivalence classes in a matching-to-sample task (MTS). To illustrate the procedure, we evaluated the effects of different MTS training structures on observing responses and equivalence class formation. Participants had to press a button below each covered sample and comparison stimuli to reveal the stimulus. Four participants were exposed to two different sequences of the many-to-one (MTO) and one-to-many (OTM) procedures, using the manual-observing procedure during training and testing. The results showed that the manual-observing procedure allowed participants to acquire conditional discriminations and form equivalence classes, suggesting that the use of manual-observing responses in an MTS procedure is a useful procedure to evaluate stimulus control in an MTS task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and subsequent performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60, 437–462.

  2. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (1997). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design. The Psychological Record, 47(2), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395227.

  3. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (2000). Equivalence outcome in single subjects as a function of training structure. The Psychological Record, 50, 603–628.

  4. Ayres Pereira, V., & Arntzen, E. (2018). Effect of presenting baseline probes during or after emergent relations tests on equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0326-8.

  5. Carrigan, P. F., & Sidman, M. (1992). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1992.58-183.

  6. Dinsmoor, J. A. (1983). Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 6(4), 693. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00017969.

  7. Dinsmoor, J. A. (1985). The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1985.43-365.

  8. Dinsmoor, J. A., Mueller, K. L., Martin, L. T., & Bowe, C. A. (1982). The acquisition of observing. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38(3), 249–263. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1347865/pdf/jeabehav00067-0023.pdf.

  9. Dube, W. V., Balsamo, L. M., Fowler, T. R., Dickson, C. A., Lombard, K. M., & Tomanari, G. Y. (2006). Observing behavior topography in delayed matching to multiple samples. Psychological Record, 56(2), 233–244 Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03395547.

  10. Dube, W. V., Lombard, K. M., Farrem, K. M., Flusser, D. S., Balsamo, L. M., Fowler, T. R., & Tomanari, G. Y. (2003). Stimulus overselectivity and observing behavior in individuals with mental retardation. In S. Soraci & K. Murata-Soraci (Eds.), Visual information processing (pp. 109–123). Westport: Praeger.

  11. Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1999). Reduction of stimulus overselectivity with nonverbal differential observing responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1999.32-25.

  12. Fantino, E., & Silberberg, A. (2010). Revisiting the role of bad news in maintaining human observing behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2010.93-157.

  13. Farber, R. S., Dickson, C. A., & Dube, W. V. (2017). Reducing overselective stimulus control with differential observing responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(1), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.363.

  14. Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1987.48-317.

  15. Hamasaki, E. I. M. (2009). Respostas de observação na tarefa de pareamento ao modelo: analisando topografias de controle de estímulos e seus efeitos sobre a formação de equivalência. São Paulo, Brazil: Universidade de São Paulo. Retrieved from www.teses.usp.br

  16. Hansen, S., & Arntzen, E. (2015). Fixating, attending, and observing: A behavior analytic eye-movement analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 1149(February), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2015.1090750.

  17. Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (2000). Reaction times and the emergence of class consistent responding: A case for precurrent responding? The Psychological Record, 50, 305–337.

  18. Hove, O. (2003). Differential probability of equivalence class formation following a one-to-many versus a many-to-one training structure. The Psychological Record, 53(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395456.

  19. Huziwara, E. M., De Souza, G., & Tomanari, G. Y. (2016). Patterns of eye movement in matching-to-sample tasks. Psicologia: Reflexão E Crítica, 29(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0010-3.

  20. Perez, W. F., Tomanari, G. Y., & Vaidya, M. (2015). Effects of select and reject control on equivalence class formation and transfer of function. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104(2), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.164.

  21. Sadeghi, P., & Arntzen, E. (2018). Eye-movements, training structures, and equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 68, 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0290-3.

  22. Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training-structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72(1), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.72-117.

  23. Saunders, R. R., & McEntee, J. E. (2004). Increasing the probability of stimulus equivalence with adults with mild mental retardation. The Psychological Record, 54(3), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395483.

  24. Schroeder, S., & Holland, J. G. (1968). Operant control of eye movements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(2), 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.02.009.

  25. Shahan, T. A. (2010). Conditioned reinforcement and response strength. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93(2), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2010.93-269.

  26. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative Retrieved from https://www.worldcat.org/title/equivalence-relations-and-behavior-a-research-story/oclc/260186817&referer=brief_results.

  27. Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005). Establishing equivalence classes in preschool children with one-to-many and many-to-one training protocols. Behavioural Processes, 69(3), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BEPROC.2004.12.009.

  28. Steingrimsdottir, H. S., & Arntzen, E. (2016). Eye movements during conditional discrimination training. The Psychological Record, 66(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0156-x.

  29. Tomanari, G. Y. (2009). Resposta de observação: Uma reavaliação. Acta Comportamentalia, 17(3), 259–277.

  30. Tomanari, G. Y., & Capócio, V. (2008). Match! São Paulo, SP: Laboratório de Análise Experimental do Comportamento do Instituto de Psicologia da Universidade de São Paulo.

  31. Urcuioli, P. J., Zentall, T. R., & DeMarse, T. (1995). Transfer to derived sample-comparison relations by pigeons following many-to-one versus one-to-many matching with identical training relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(2), 158–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401445.

  32. Walpole, C. W., Roscoe, E. M., & Dube, W. V. (2007). Use of a differential observing response to expand restricted stimulus control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(4), 707–712. https://doi.org/10.1901/JABA.2007.707-712.

  33. Williams, B. A. (1994). Conditioned reinforcement: Experimental and theoretical issues. The Behavior Analyst, 17(2), 261–285.

  34. Wyckoff, L. B. (1952). The role of observing responses in discrimination learning—Part I. Psychological Review, 59, 431–442.

  35. Wyckoff, L. B. (1969). The role of observing responses in discrimination learning. In D. P. Hendry (Ed.), Conditioned reinforcement (pp. 237–260). Homewood: Dorsey Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Doctoral scholarship to Paulo S. D. Soares-Filho (CAPES) and University of San Buenaventura Institutional Research Grant (2018), William F. Perez and Heloísa C. Campos (FAPESP) and Eliana I. M. Hamasaki (CNPq); scientific initiation scholarship to Lígia M. de Carvalho (CNPq/INCT-ECCE); and a Research Productivity Grant (CNPq) to Gerson Y. Tomanari. Paulo S. D. Soares Filho, William F. Perez, Heloísa C. Campos, Eliana I. M. Hamasaki, Lígia M. de Carvalho and Gerson Y. Tomanari are members of the National Institute of Science and Technology on Behavior, Cognition, and Teaching, supported by FAPESP (grant no. 08/57705-8) and CNPq (grant no. 573972/2008-7).

Author information

Correspondence to Paulo Sérgio Dillon Soares-Filho.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The ethics committee of the Psychology Institute at the University of São Paulo approved all procedures used in this experiment (#14026913.2.0000.5561).

Informed Consent

The participation in this experiment was completely voluntary and an informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

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

Soares-Filho, P.S.D., de Carvalho, L.M., de Moraes Hamasaki, E.I. et al. Manual-Observing Procedure: an Alternative to the Investigation of Stimulus Control and Equivalence Classes in Matching-to-Sample. Psychol Rec 69, 165–174 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-00328-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Manual-observing responses
  • Matching-to-sample
  • Equivalence class
  • Training structures