1
Conditional Relations among Abstract Stimuli: Outcomes from Three Procedures- Variations of Go/no-go and Match-to-Sample
A Thesis Presented
by
Kimberly M. Walter
The Department of Counseling and Applied Educational Psychology
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
In the field of
Applied Behavior Analysis
Northeastern University
Boston, MA
June, 2010
2
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Bouvé College of Health Sciences Graduate School
Thesis Title: Conditional Relations among Abstract Stimuli: Outcomes from Three Procedures- Variations of Go/no-go and Match-to-Sample
Author: Kimberly M. Walter
Department: Counseling and Applied Educational Psychology
Approved for Thesis Requirements of Master of Science Degree
(Paula Braga-Kenyon M.S., BCBA)
(Chata Dickson Ph.D., BCBA)
(Meca Andrade M.S., BCBA)
3
Running head: VARIATIONS OF GO/NO-GO AND MATCH-TO-SAMPLE
Conditional Relations among Abstract Stimuli: Outcomes from Three Procedures- Variations of Go/no-go and Match-to-Sample
by
Kimberly M. Walter
B.A., Michigan State University
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Behavior Analysis
in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences Graduate School of Northeastern University, June 2010
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Paula Braga-Kenyon for her guidance, knowledge, and
assistance throughout the process of developing, conducting, and writing my thesis.
This manuscript would not have been feasible without her endless support. I would
also like to thank Chata Dickson and Meca Andrade for assisting in manuscript
revisions and providing helpful guidance and feedback.
5
Abstract
Match-to-sample procedures (MTS) are often implemented to train conditional
relations and to test for emergent relations among arbitrary stimuli. In 2007, Debert,
Matos, and McIlvane evaluated if a single-key procedure (go/no-go) could be an
alternative to the traditional MTS procedures to teach conditional discriminations
and to test for emergent relations in humans. The current study replicated and
extended Debert et al. The acquisition of conditional relations and the emergence of
derived relations with arbitrary stimuli were compared using three different
procedures: go/no-go, go/no-go with printed words “yes” and “no” as a component,
and MTS. Three typically developing females, age 23-25, participated in visual-
visual tasks during a series of table-top presentations. AB and BC relations were
directly trained, and BA, CB, AC, and CA relations were tested. Depending on the
procedure, training and testing occurred with stimuli sets 1-3, 4-6, or 7-9. The three
participants demonstrated the emergency of new, untrained relations with all three
procedures. The current results replicated the findings of Debert et al. and extended
previous findings by evaluating a go/no-go with a yes/no component which may
serve as an alternative method to the traditional MTS. Additionally, the current
study provided a within participant comparison across all three procedures.
6
Table of Contents
A. Abstract………………………………………………………..5
B. Introduction…………………………………………………..7
C. Method………………………………………………………10
D. Results……………………………………………………....18
E. Discussion………………………………………………….22
F. References………………………………………………….25
G. Tables……………………………………………………….27
H. Figure Captions…………………………………………….34
I. Figures………………………………………………………35
7
Conditional Relations among Abstract Stimuli: Outcomes from Three Procedures- Variations of Go/No-go and Match-to-Sample
Many individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other
developmental disabilities have difficulty demonstrating equivalence relations among
stimuli. From a practical standpoint, stimulus equivalence is a way that individuals
learn new concepts such as reading (Sidman, 1971). Equivalence among stimuli can
be verified through positive demonstrations of the properties of reflexivity, symmetry,
and transitivity.
In reflexivity, a learner, without prior training or programmed consequences
for doing so, when presented with a sample stimulus, selects a comparison stimulus
that is the same as the sample stimulus (A=A). This type of relation has also been
called identity matching (Sidman & Tailby, 1982).
Symmetry is an untrained, derived relation; it requires that the relation holds
bi-directionally between each pair of related items, and the sample/comparison role to
be interchangeable (A=B, then B=A) (Sidman & Tailby, 1982).
Transitivity, the third property required for equivalence, is also an untrained,
derived relation (if A=B, and B=C, then C=A) that emerges as a product of training
two other relations (A=B, B=C). As with reflexivity and symmetry, this relation must
emerge without additional instruction or reinforcement. Taken together, positive
demonstrations of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity, indicates that the stimuli are
members of an equivalence class (Sidman & Tailby, 1982).
When training conditional relations and testing for emergent relations,
researchers often employ MTS procedures (Sidman, 1994). Typically, MTS
8
procedures involve the presentation of a sample stimulus (conditional stimulus) either
before the presentation of comparison stimuli, or at the same time as the presentation
of comparison stimuli. The comparison stimuli (discriminative stimuli) can be
presented in several different locations and there are typically at least three
comparison stimuli in order to avoid selection based on exclusion (Green, 2001). A
response is scored as the participant selecting one of the comparison stimuli. These
procedures often use arbitrary stimuli that the participant does not have prior
experience or history with (Cumming & Berryman, 1961).
One alternative procedure for training conditional relations and testing for the
emergence of relations is the go/no-go procedure. In this procedure, two stimuli are
presented on the same key, as a compound stimulus. The two stimuli that are
presented together are either members of the same stimulus class (related stimuli) or
not members of the same stimulus class (non-related stimuli). In 1971, Mallot,
Mallot, Svinicki, Kladder, and Ponicki conducted a study where pigeons’
performances indicated responding based on matching. In their procedure, stimuli
(colors) were presented on two halves of the same response key. If the halves were
the same color and the pigeon pecked the key, reinforcers were delivered.
Reinforcers were not delivered if the pigeons selected the response key when the two
halves were different colors. The pigeons were exposed to discrimination training
using two colors. During testing, two new colors were presented on the response key
under extinction. The results indicated that the pigeons who were trained to respond
to matching halves responded more when keys with new colors had matching halves
then when they had non-matching halves with the new colors during testing.
9
However, these results could have been due to generalization along the color
continuum (Mallot et al., 1971).
In an effort to replicate and extend the results of Mallot et al. (1971), Zentall
and Hogan (1975) used a similar procedure, where in one experiment the pigeons
were trained to respond to matching stimuli (response keys with red/red and
green/green) and not peck if the response key displayed different colored halves
(red/green and green/red). Following training, the birds were exposed to new
matching and non-matching stimuli using response key combinations of yellow and
blue. In the second experiment, the response keys were divided into either bright or
dim key illumination to test if responding was controlled by generalization along the
color continuum. In both experiments, transfer to new colors or brightness was better
for birds who completed the same task as in training than for birds who were exposed
to the other task. Taken together, the results of these two studies indicated that
pigeons are capable of demonstrating identity relations using a go/no-go procedure.
Recently, Debert, Matos, and McIlvane (2007) used a go/no-go procedure to
train conditional relations and test for emergent relations with adult humans. In their
study, twp arbitrary stimuli were displayed on a response key. Responding to related
compounds, or members of the experimenter identified stimulus class resulted in
points earned which were later exchanged for back-up reinforcers. Responding to
non-related compounds, or members of different stimulus classes, did not produce
programmed consequences. Following training of A1-3B1-3 and B1-3C1-3 relations
using differential programmed consequences, Debert et al. tested for symmetry,
transitivity, and equivalence relations under extinction. Notably, 6/6 of their
10
participants demonstrated symmetry and 4/6 participants demonstrated transitivity
and equivalence relations.
The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend the findings of
Debert et al. (2007) by comparing participant performances with a go/no-go
procedure, (as presented in Debert et al.) a go/no-go procedure where the participant
selects printed words “yes” or “no” instead of touching the related compound stimuli
and not touching the non-related compound stimuli, and MTS. The addition of the
yes/no component was examined during the go/no-go procedure as it was anticipated
that it may be difficult for some individuals to refrain from responding (not touch the
stimuli) and just wait for the presentation of the next trial. Previous literature has also
not compared these three procedures within and across participants.
Method
Participants
The participants were three females between 23 and 25 years of age (NF,
LEC, and LC) employed by a school for children diagnosed with ASD. All of the
participants had experience running MTS procedures with their students; but had
never completed a MTS procedure as a participant, nor a go/no- go procedure. The
participants also had no prior familiarity with stimulus control literature or research.
Participants were told they would receive a $30 gift certificate of their choice,
regardless of their performance, following the completion of their participation in the
study.
11
Apparatus and stimuli
Stimuli were presented on a table in front of the participant (table-top
presentation) and data collection was conducted manually. Sessions took place in a
room with a table and chairs. During sessions, participants sat across the table from
the experimenter and the stimuli were presented to the participant according to the
prescribed phase of the study. During MTS sessions, all four stimuli (one sample and
three comparison stimuli) were presented simultaneously on a sheet of paper that was
presented in front of the participant for each trial. During go/no go trials, the
compound stimuli were presented on a flashcard that was also presented in front of
the participant on the table. Pre-printed data sheets were used to collect and score
data.
Stimuli used during the go/no-go procedures and MTS were three sets of nine
arbitrary forms designated as A1-9, B1-9, and C1-9 for purposes of identification
only, and comprised the three-member stimulus classes; the designations were not
displayed to the participants (Table 1). The experimental stimuli were judged to be
physically dissimilar with respect to form; stimulus-stimulus relations were arbitrarily
assigned by the contingencies programmed by the experimenter. One set of stimuli
(class 1-3) was the same stimuli used in both Markham and Dougher, (1993) and
Debert et al., (2007).
Prior to the beginning of training, a short questionnaire was sent to
participants requesting them to indicate their preferences for edible items. Indicated
edible items were delivered following the completion of sessions for that day.
12
Following the completion of the entire study, the participant also received a $30 gift
certificate of their choice. In the go/no-go with yes/no component, selection of
yes/no could be considered the same topographical response. Therefore, at the end of
the experiment, before debriefing occurred, each compound stimuli used during the
go/no go with yes/no component were presented and the participant was asked to say
“yes” or “no” when the experimenter held up each compound stimulus that was
presented during the procedure. Debriefing with each participant was conducted at the
end of the last session.
Sessions were run once per week and lasted approximately three hours.
During the three hours, one of the procedures (go/no-go, go/no-go with yes/no, MTS)
was run in its entirety.
Procedure
During a pre-experimental phase, participants were exposed to all of the
relations under extinction to demonstrate a lack of prior history with the relations
among the stimuli. This pre-experimental phase was conducted prior to the
introductions of each procedure (go/no-go, go/no-go with yes/no, MTS).
Following the pre-experimental phase, Phase I, baseline training, was
introduced. Phase II introduced the first test, the test for symmetry, and Phase III
tested for transitivity and equivalence. Participants were exposed to the procedures in
the following order: go/no-go, go/no-go with yes/no, and MTS. All of the
13
participants completed the procedures in the same order, but the stimuli sets (1-3, 4-6,
7-9) were rotated across procedures.
In each phase, all trials began with a 4s presentation of stimuli. This was
introduced in order to control for the duration of exposure to each stimulus across
procedures.
Interobserver agreement and procedural integrity
Sessions were either video-taped, or a second observer was present during
sessions and recorded interobserver and procedural integrity data independently from
the experimenter. Interobserver agreement (IOA) and procedural integrity (PI) data
were recorded in 33% of sessions for each participant. IOA was calculated by
subtracting the number of disagreements from the number of agreements, dividing
that number by the total number of trials, and multiplying that number by 100. IOA
agreement for all participants during go/no-go, go/no-go with yes/no, and MTS
procedures was (100%, 100%, and 100% respectively). Data was also recorded for PI
during 33% of sessions for each participant across procedures. Data collected on
experimenter behavior included: were the correct stimuli presented, was the location
of the stimuli correct, was the correct feedback given contingent upon participant
responding, and whether the stimuli were presented for approximately 4s. In 33% of
sessions, the experimenter presented the correct stimuli in 100% of opportunities,
presented the stimuli in the correct location in 100% of opportunities, provided the
correct feedback contingent upon participant responding in 99% of opportunities, and
presented experimental stimuli for approximately 4s in 98% of opportunities.
14
Phase I
In Phase I, AB and BC relations were trained in inter-mixed trials.
Go/no-go procedures: The order and presentation of the compounds with related and
non-related components varied randomly across trials. Eighteen different compound
stimuli were developed from the combination of nine abstract stimuli (Table 2). There
were 12 blocks of 24 trials, equaling a total of 288 trials in one training session. Each
block was composed of two presentations of each related stimulus (go) and one
presentation of each non-related stimulus (no-go). Related and non-related
compounds appeared equally often in a block, and the same type of relation (related
or non-related) could not occur more than three times successively. If the participant
selected a related compound stimulus, they were told “Correct”, the compound
stimulus was removed and the next prescribed compound stimulus was presented. If
the participant refrained from touching a non-related compound stimulus, they were
also told “Correct”, the compound stimulus was removed and the next prescribed
compound stimulus was presented. If the participant did not respond to a related
compound stimulus, or if they selected a non-related compound stimulus, the
experimenter remained silent, removed the compound stimulus, and presented the
next prescribed compound stimulus. At the beginning of the phase, the following
instructions were read to the participants:
This study is not about intelligence testing and will not evaluate your intellectual abilities. At the end of the study you will be provided with
15
a full explanation. I will be in the room during the entire session. Following the completion of today’s sessions, you will receive an edible item that you have previously selected. I will present a card to you with two symbols on it; you will have approximately 4-s to respond. Your task is to touch the card when you think the correct two symbols are shown, and to refrain from touching the card when you think incorrect symbols are shown. If you touch the card when the correct symbols are shown, or refrain from selecting incorrect symbols, I will tell you “correct”. If you touch the card when incorrect symbols are shown, or do not respond when correct symbols are shown, I will not say anything. Please pay attention even when you think the task seems very simple. Do you have any questions? When you are ready to begin, please let me know. Thank you for your participation.
In the go/no-go with yes/no component, the procedure was the same with the
exception that the printed words “yes” and “no” were placed on the table in front of
the participant. The printed word “yes” was placed on the table in the participant’s
left-side and the printed word “no” was placed on the table in front of the
participant’s left-side, and was not rotated throughout sessions. The following
instructions were read to the participants for this procedure:
This study is not about intelligence testing and will not evaluate your intellectual abilities. At the end of the study you will be provided with a full explanation. I will be in the room during the entire session. Following the completion of today’s sessions, you will receive an edible item that you have previously selected. I will present a card to you with two symbols on it; you will have approximately 4-s to respond. Your task is to touch the yes card when you think the correct two symbols are shown, and to touch the no card when you think incorrect symbols are shown. If you touch the yes card when the correct symbols are shown, I will tell you “correct” and if you touch the no card when incorrect symbols are shown I will tell you “correct”. If you select the yes card when incorrect symbols are shown, or select the no card when correct symbols are shown I will not say anything. Please pay attention even when you think the task seems very simple. Do you have any questions? When you are ready to begin, please let me know. Thank you for your participation.
16
MTS procedure: The order of the stimuli presentation was semi-random and
counterbalanced across trials. There were eight blocks, each composed of 18 trials,
equaling 144 trials in one training session. Each relation was presented three times
within a block, with the location of the comparison stimuli rotated across the left,
center, and right positions. Sample and comparison stimuli were presented
simultaneously on a printed note-card. Given a particular sample, if the participant
selected the correct, experimenter identified comparison stimulus, the experimenter
stated, “Correct”, the stimuli were removed and the next set of sample and
comparison stimuli were presented as prescribed on the data sheet. If the participant
did not select the correct comparison stimulus, the experimenter did not provide
verbal feedback, removed the stimuli and the next prescribed set of sample and
comparison stimuli were presented. For this procedure, the following instructions
were given to the participant:
This study is not about intelligence testing and will not evaluate your intellectual abilities. At the end of this study you will be provided with a full explanation. I will be in the room during the entire session. Following the completion of today’s sessions, you will receive an edible item that you have previously selected. I will present a card to you with four symbols on it; you will have approximately 4-s to respond. Your task is to select one of the three symbols displayed on the bottom of the card that you think belongs with the symbol that is on the top of the card. If you select the correct symbol along the bottom, I will say “correct”, and if you select an incorrect symbol I will not say anything. Please pay attention even when you think the task seems very simple. Do you have any questions? When you are ready to begin, please let me know. Thank you for your participation.
It should be noted that the difference in the number of training trials between
the go/no-go procedures and MTS was due to the non-related compounds that were
presented in the go/no-go procedure. Overall, related stimulus-stimulus relations
17
were presented an equal number of times for both the go/no-go procedures and MTS
procedure.
Mastery criteria
Training continued until the participant made less than 24 errors throughout
the entire 288 or 144 trials in training (go/no-go procedures or MTS respectively),
and scored 100% correct responding during the last six blocks.
Phase II
Phase II introduced the test for symmetry. The BA and CB relations were
presented in inter-mixed trials. Again, stimuli were presented for 4s, regardless of
participant responding.
During this phase, the test was carried out under extinction or, there were no
programmed, differential consequences following responses. This phase was
conducted for one session only, regardless of performance.
Go/no-go procedures: Sessions consisted of six blocks, with 24 compound stimulus
presentations (two presentations of each related compound, and one presentation of
each non-related compound), equaling 144 total trials in one session.
MTS procedure: Sessions consisted of four blocks, with 18 stimulus presentations
(each sample and comparison relation presented once, across the left, center, and right
comparison stimulus positions), equaling 72 total trials.
For all procedures, the instructions read to participants were:
18
This is a new phase of the study and your task has been modified. Respond based on what you think is correct. I will not say correct at any point during this phase, but you should know that at least some of the cards presented will be correct, so you should still respond based on what you think is correct. Again, you will have approximately 4s to respond. Do you have any questions? When you are ready to begin, please let me know.
Phase III
The third phase consisted of a test for transitivity and equivalence (relations
AC and CA), carried out under extinction and presented in inter-mixed trials. This
phase was conducted for one session, regardless of participant performance.
Go/no-go procedures: Sessions consisted of six blocks, with 24 compound stimulus
presentations (two presentations of each related compound, and one presentation of
each non-related compound), equaling 144 total trials in one session.
MTS procedure: Sessions consisted of four blocks, with 18 stimulus presentations
(each sample and comparison relation presented once, across the left, center, and right
comparison stimulus positions), equaling 72 total trials. For all procedures, the
instructions read to participants were the same as those provided for phase II.
Results
Table 3 displays results for participant NF across the three procedures. This
table breaks the performances into session summaries for training and test for
symmetry and then by blocks within session for tests of transitivity and equivalence,
followed by a session summary. Participant NF met mastery criteria for each of the
19
procedures within two sessions. Tests for symmetry across each of the procedures
demonstrated positive results (responding correctly to stimuli on 90% or more of
trials). During go/no-go, participant NF exhibited scores that ranged between 54.2%
and 83.3% consistent with transitivity and equivalence during individual blocks
within session. Averaged across blocks, responding during tests for transitivity and
equivalence for go/no-go was 72.2%. While this percentage of correct responding is
higher than chance level (50%), it did not meet the 90% criterion set by the
experimenter as demonstration of emergent relations. Further, during the test for
transitivity and equivalence correct responding never reached 100%. Participant NF
did demonstrate positive results for transitivity and equivalence in the go/no-go with
yes/no procedure (average of 95.8% and 100% correct responding during the last
three test blocks). Finally, during the MTS procedure for tests for transitivity and
equivalence, the participant demonstrated positive results. Data averaged across
blocks (83.3%) appears to indicate negative results in comparison to the 90% correct
responding criterion, however data from the last three test blocks show 100% correct
responding.
Table 4 displays results for participant LEC across the three procedures.
Participant LEC met mastery criteria for each of the procedures within the first
session of training. Tests for symmetry across each of the procedures demonstrated
positive results (100% correct responding for each procedure). Participant LEC also
demonstrated the emergence of transitivity and equivalence with scores of 91%,
99.3%, and 100%, respectively.
20
Table 5 depicts the results for participant LC across procedures. The mastery
criterion for training was reached within two sessions for go/no-go and one session
for go/no-go with yes/no and MTS. Tests for symmetry were positive (100% correct
responding across all three procedures). During the go/no-go procedure, participant
LC demonstrated emergent relations for transitivity and equivalence. Again, while
data averaged across blocks (83.3%) at first appears to indicate negative results in
comparison to the 90% correct responding criterion, correct responding during the
last four test blocks was maintained above 90% (91.7%, 95.8%, 95.8%, 95.8%).
Participant LC also demonstrated transitivity and equivalence relations during
go/no-go with yes/no (100% correct responding) and MTS (100% correct
responding).
Figure 1 displays the data from Tables 3-5. Again, it is notable that 3/3
participants demonstrated symmetry across all three procedures. During tests for
transitivity and equivalence, in the go/no-go procedure, 2/3 participants had positive
demonstrations for those relations, 3/3 participants demonstrated emergent relations
during the go/no-go with yes/no, and 3/3 participants demonstrated these relations
during the MTS procedure.
Figure 2 depicts errors per block across the three procedures for each
participant during training. As one would expect, more errors were made across all
procedures during the blocks near the beginning of training, as participants learned
the contingencies the experimenter had programmed. For all participants, the go/no-
go procedure produced the highest number of errors across blocks while
21
performances in the MTS procedure resulted in the lowest number of errors across
blocks.
Table 6 presents a more detailed analysis of the errors that participants NF
made during tests for transitivity and equivalence in the go/no-go procedure.
Participant NF initially made more errors to related compounds than non-related
compounds, which may have been predicted, as a correct response to a non-related
compound during the go/no-go is simply not touching the compound and waiting for
the next trial presentation. Notably, during this procedure, in the test for transitivity
and equivalence, she never responded correctly to the relations A3C3 and C3A3.
Last, Table 7 presents data for two types of errors (omission and commission)
across participants during the go/no-go procedure. If the number of commission
errors was higher than omission errors, it would indicate that the addition of the
yes/no component during the go/no-go procedure could be useful as an added feature
to attempt to reduce participant errors made by responding to non-related compounds.
This hypothesis is based on the assumption that refraining from responding is a
challenging response for participants. For example, participants LEC and LC had a
higher percent of commission errors in comparison to omission errors during the
go/no-go procedure, indicating that refraining from responding to non-related
compound stimuli may have been difficult.
22
Discussion
The goal of this study was to replicate the results of Debert et al. (2007), and
extend those results by comparing three procedures (go/no-go, go/no-go with yes/no
components, and MTS) within and across participants. All participants in this study
demonstrated symmetry across all three procedures. During transitivity and
equivalence tests in the go/no-go procedure 2/3 participants demonstrated
equivalence, while 3/3 participants demonstrated emergent relations during the go/no-
go with yes/no, and MTS procedures. The results of the current study are promising
in that all participants demonstrated transitivity and equivalence during the go/no-go
with yes/no component, confirming that this procedure is another potential teaching
alternative to the MTS procedure.
One limitation to this study was that go/no-go was always the first procedure
presented to participants, and therefore the first exposure the participants had to tests
for transitivity and equivalence. For all participants, tests for these relations produced
better outcomes in the subsequent phases where other procedures were used. Further
research should rotate procedure order.
In the current study, participant performances improved, even without
providing programmed consequences for responding within session for tests of
transitivity and equivalence. For example, during the go/no-go procedure for
participant LEC, her scores ranged from 50% correct responding in the first block to
100% correct responding in the second block. A similar pattern was observed with
participants LC (scores ranging from 33.3% in block 1 to 95.8% in block 6) and NF
23
(scores ranging from 54.2% in block 1 to 83.3% in block 6). Lazar, Davis-Lang, and
Sanchez (1984) reported similar results during test sessions. While it still remains
unclear as to why this occurs, it may be that participants may simply require exposure
to the testing procedure during tests for transitivity and equivalence.
Green (2001) described three components that must occur during a MTS
procedure in order to produce conditional discriminations. The participant must (a)
discriminate among sample stimuli across trials, (b) discriminate among comparison
stimuli within each trial, and (c) relate each comparison stimulus with only one
specific sample stimulus. In a MTS procedure, the sample stimulus is the conditional
stimulus whereas the comparison stimuli serve as discriminative stimuli. It should be
noted that in MTS (as presented in the current study) all three comparison stimuli
were presented together at one time (one S+ and two S-), perhaps facilitating the
discrimination among comparison stimuli within each trial. In comparison, during
go/no-go procedures, the conditional stimulus was presented next to the
discriminative stimulus (either the S+ or the S-). It is interesting that the positive
results for equivalence using go/no-go procedures suggest that equivalence can be
demonstrated even when there were not two S- present when the conditional stimulus
was presented. This arrangement may present a more difficult discrimination of
conditional stimuli. Further research should further investigate this hypothesis.
When examining the three procedures, it is important to note that the
procedures teach participants to engage in different tasks while learning the
conditional discriminations during training and therefore which teaching procedure is
24
more appropriate or even more efficient is likely to vary across individuals. For
example, in MTS procedures, participants were required to observe four stimuli
simultaneously and then select one comparison stimulus contingent upon which
sample stimulus was presented. This procedure may be more appropriate for
individuals who are capable of scanning multiple stimuli before engaging in a
response. In comparison, in the go/no-go procedure, participants must have the
ability to refrain from responding when non-related compounds are presented and
wait until the next trial is presented before again deciding if they should respond. This
procedure may not be appropriate for individuals who have a bias of always
responding (selecting stimuli). Finally, the go/no-go procedure with yes/no
component allows participants to always respond to stimuli, but only requires the
participant to examine the compound stimulus, and does not require scanning across
more than two stimuli at the same time. Future research is needed to further refine
which methodology would be more appropriate for other populations of individuals,
such as individuals with developmental disabilities and more closely examine the
behavioral processes that underlie the three teaching methodologies.
Additionally, future research should also explore using alternative stimuli to
respond to during go/no-go procedures instead of yes/no. It is likely that participants
have pre-experimental histories with the words “yes” and “no” which could influence
participant responding. It would be interesting to examine responding and emergent
relations if the yes/no were replaced with other arbitrary stimuli. It would also be
beneficial to test if these arbitrary stimuli also enter into the stimuli classes.
25
References
Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. (1961). Some data on matching behavior in the
pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 281-284.
Debert, P., Matos, M. A., & McIlvane, W. (2007). Conditional relations with
compound abstract stimuli using a go/no-go procedure. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 89-96.
Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: Advances in
stimulus control technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 16, 72-85.
Lazar, R. M., Davis-Lang, D., & Sanchez, L. (1984). The formation of visual
stimulus equivalences in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 41, 251-266.
Mallot, R. W., Mallot, K., Svinicki, J. G., Kladder, F., & Ponicki, E. (1971). An
analysis of matching and non-matching behavior using a single key, free
operant procedure. The Psychological Record, 21, 545-564.
Markham, M. R., & Dougher, M. J. (1993). Compound stimuli in emergent stimulus
relations: Extending the scope of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 529-542.
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 14, 5-13.
26
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston:
Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M. & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample:
An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 37, 5-22.
Zentall, T. R., & Hogan, D. E., (1975). Concept learning in the pigeon: Transfer to
new matching and non-matching stimuli. American Journal of Psychology,
88, 233-244.
27
Table 1
Stimuli used during Go/no-go, Go/no-go with Yes/no, and Match-to-Sample
Procedures, Comprising the Three-member Stimulus Classes (1-3, 4-6, 7-9)
A B C Class
1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class
5
Class
6
Class
7
Ω ≈ ⊗ Class
8 Ψ σ ∑
Class 9
» ξ ρ
28
Table 2
Related and Non-related Compound Stimuli Presented in Go/no-go Procedures across
Phases
Go (Related Compounds)
No-go (Non-related Compounds)
Training A1B1 A1B2, A1B3 A2B2 A2B1, A2B3 A3B3 A3B1, A3B2 B1C1 B1C2, B1C3 B2C2 B2C1, B2C3 B3C3 B3C1, B3C2
Symmetry B1A1 B1A2, B1A3 B2A2 B2A1, B2A3 B3A3 B3A1, B3A2 C1B1 C1B2, C1B3 C2B2 C2B1, C2B3 C3B3 C3B1, C3B2
Transitivity A1C1 A1C2, A1C3 A2C2 A2C1, A2C3 A3C3 A3C1, A3C2
Equivalence C1A1 C1A2, C1A3 C2A2 C2A1, C2A3 C3A3 C3A1, C3A2
29
Table 3
Percentage of Correct Responding for Participant NF during Training and Testing
Participant NF Go/No-go, 123 Go/No-go, Y/N, 456 MTS, 789
Tra
inin
g
Session 1 Blocks 1-12 (Go/No-go) Blocks 1-8
(MTS)
85.1%
(245/288)
87.9%
(253/288)
77.1%
(111/144)
Session 2 Blocks 1-12 (Go/No-go) Blocks 1-8
(MTS)
96.5%
(278/288)
99.7%
(287/288)
98.6%
(142/144)
Sym
met
ry
Tes
t Session 1 93.1%
(134/144)
97.9%
(141/144)
98.6%
(71/72)
Tra
nsit
ivit
y an
d E
quiv
alen
ce T
ests
Block 1 54.2%
(13/24)
91.7%
(22/24)
33.3%
(6/18)
Block 2 66.7%
(16/24)
91.7%
(22/24)
100%
(18/18)
Block 3 75%
(18/24)
91.7%
(22/24)
100%
(18/18)
Block 4 79.2%
(19/24)
100%
(24/24)
100%
(18/18)
Block 5 75%
(18/24)
100%
(24/24)
Block 6 83.3%
(20/24)
100%
(24/24)
Blocks 1-6 (Go/No-go) Blocks 1-4
(MTS)
72.2%
(104/144)
95.8%
(138/144)
83.3%
(60/72)
30
Table 4
Percentage of Correct Responding for Participant LEC during Training and Testing
Participant LEC Go/No-go, 789 Go/No-go, Y/N, 123 MTS, 456
Tra
inin
g Session 1 Blocks 1-12 (Go/No-go) Blocks 1-8
(MTS)
91.7% (264/288)
95.5% (275/288)
97.9% (141/144)
Sym
met
ry
Tes
t Session 1 100% (144/144)
100% (144/144)
100% (72/72)
Tra
nsit
ivit
y an
d E
quiv
alen
ce T
ests
Block 1 50% (12/24)
95.8% (23/24)
100% (18/18)
Block 2 100% (24/24)
100% (24/24)
100% (18/18)
Block 3 95.8% (23/24)
100% (24/24)
100% (18/18)
Block 4 100% (24/24)
100% (24/24)
100% (18/18)
Block 5 100% (24/24)
100% (24/24)
Block 6 100% (24/24)
100% (24/24)
Blocks 1-6 (Go/No-go) Blocks 1-4
(MTS)
91% 131/144
99.3% (143/144)
100% (72/72)
31
Table 5
Percentage of Correct Responding for Participant LC during Training and Testing
Participant LC Go/No-go, 456 Go/No-go, Y/N, 789 MTS, 123
Tra
inin
g
Session 1 Blocks 1-12 (Go/No-go) Blocks 1-8
(MTS)
90.3% (260/288)
93.4% (269/288)
92.4% (133/144)
Session 2 Blocks 1-12 (Go/No-go)
100% (288/288)
Sym
met
ry
Tes
t Session 1 100% (144/144)
100% (144/144)
100% (72/72)
Tra
nsit
ivit
y an
d E
quiv
alen
ce T
ests
Block 1 33.3% (8/24)
100% (24/24)
100% (18/18)
Block 2 87.5% (21/24)
100% (24/24)
100% (18/18)
Block 3 91.7% (22/24)
100% (24/24)
100% (18/18)
Block 4 95.8% (23/24)
100.0% (24/24)
100% (18/18)
Block 5 95.8% (23/24)
100.0% (24/24)
Block 6 95.8% (23/24)
100.0% (24/24)
Blocks 1-6 (Go/No-go) Blocks 1-4
(MTS)
83.3% (120/144)
100% (144/144)
100% (72/72)
32
Table 6 Percentage of Correct Performances and the Compound Stimuli to Which Participant NF
Produced Errors during Tests for Transitivity and Equivalence during the Go/no-go
Procedure
Participant NF
Go/No-go
Related Not Related
Errors in related Errors in not related
Block 1 33.3% (4/12)
75% (9/12)
A1C1, A3C3, A3C3, C1A1, C2A2, C2A2, C3A3, C3A3
A1C3, A2C3, C3A1
Block 2 50% (6/12)
83.3% (10/12)
A3C3, A3C3, C2A2, C2A2, C3A3, C3A3 A1C2, C3A1
Block 3 50% (6/12)
100% (12/12)
A2C2, A3C3, A3C3, C2A2, C3A3, C3A3 -
Block 4 58.3% (7/12)
100% (12/12)
A2C2, A3C3, A3C3, C3A3, C3A3 -
Block 5 58.3% (7/12)
91.7% (11/12)
A3C3, A3C3, C2A2, C3A3, C3A3 A1C2
Block 6 66.6% (8/12)
100% (12/12)
A3C3, A3C3, C3A3, C3A3 -
33
Table 7
Comparison across Participants for Commission and Omission Errors during Training
Session(s) in the Go/no-go Procedure
TRN 1-2 S+ S-
ResponseCORRECT (266/576)
46.2%
Commission (22/576)
3.8%
No ResponseOmission
(31/576) 5.4%
CORRECT (257/576)
44.6%
TRN 1 S+ S-
ResponseCORRECT (134/288)
46.5%
Commission (14/288)
4.9%
No ResponseOmission
(10/288) 3.5%
CORRECT (130/288)
45.1%
TRN 1-2 S+ S-
ResponseCORRECT (279/576)
48.4%
Commission (19/576)
3.3%
No ResponseOmission
(9/576) 1.6%
CORRECT (269/576)
46.7%
Go/No-Go, NF
Go/No-Go, LEC
Go/No-Go, LC
34
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Percent of correct responding across training and testing for all three
procedures, with the tests for transitivity and equivalence separated into blocks within
session for each participant.
Figure 2. Errors per block during training session(s) for all three procedures, across
participants.
35
36
