Revisiting the use of two choices in the matching-to-sample procedure.

The use of two choices in the matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure has been discouraged in the literature because it may lead to "reject control," resulting in failures to establish equivalence classes. In the present study, reject control was prevented during training with the two-choice MTS procedure by presenting the correct comparison with one of five possible incorrect comparisons across trials. This procedure was compared to a six-choice MTS procedure, in which these same six comparison stimuli were presented simultaneously across trials.

Reading comprehension with the Go/No-Go procedure with compound stimuli.

The present study investigated whether the Go/No-Go procedure with compound stimuli produces emergent relations among dictated words (A), pictures (B), and printed words (C) and the emergence of textual behavior (CD) using a multiple probe design across word sets. Three preschool children were exposed to 4 phases: (1) pretests for BC, CB, and CD relations, (2) pretraining with known stimuli, (3) AB and AC training, and (4) posttests for BC, CB, and CD relations. During AB and AC training, responses to A1B1, A2B2, A1C1, and A2C2 compound stimuli, but not to A1B2, A2B1, A1C2, and A2C1, were reinforced.

Simple discrimination training with differential responses to establish functional and equivalence classes with preschool children.

The present study assessed whether simple discrimination training with differential responses would produce functional and equivalence classes with preschool children. In Experiment 1, we exposed 10 children to simple successive discrimination training in which they had to press different buttons (selection-based responses). Response 1 (R1) was reinforced only in the presence of A1, B1, or C1, and Response 2 (R2) was reinforced only in the presence of A2, B2, or C2.

Go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli with children with autism.

The go/no-go with compound stimuli is an alternative to matching-to-sample to produce conditional and emergent relations in adults. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this procedure with two children diagnosed with autism. We trained and tested participants to respond to conditional relations among arbitrary stimuli using the go/no-go procedure.

Computational Simulation of Equivalence Class Formation Using the go/no-go Procedure with Compound Stimuli.

Research about equivalence has commonly utilized human participants as experimental subjects. More recently, computational models have been capable of reproducing performances observed in experiments with humans. The computational model often utilized is called RELNET, and it simulates training and testing trials of conditional relations using the matching-to-sample procedure (MTS).

Contextual control using a go/no-go procedure with compound abstract stimuli.

Contextual control has been described as (1) a five-term contingency, in which the contextual stimulus exerts conditional control over conditional discriminations, and (2) allowing one stimulus to be a member of different equivalence classes without merging them into one. Matching-to-sample is the most commonly employed procedure to produce and study contextual control. The present study evaluated whether the go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli produces equivalence classes that share stimuli.

Stimulus control in a go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli with pigeons.

Our previous study using a go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli taught pigeons to peck at two-component compounds A1B1, A2B2, B1C1, B2C2 and refrain from pecking at A1B2, A2B1, B1C2, B2C1. Subjects showed training-consistent responding in tests presenting compounds rotated 180° (BA and CB relations) but not recombined (AC and CA relations). It is unclear whether the responses to BA and CB stimuli were controlled by the relation between the components (conditional discrimination) or by the compounds functioning as a unitary stimulus (simple discrimination).

Go/No-Go Procedure with Compound Stimuli: Effects of Training Structure On the Emergence of Equivalence Classes.

When the matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure is used, different training structures imply differences in the successive discriminations required in training and test conditions. When the go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli is used, however, differences in training structures do not imply such differences. This study assessed whether the go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli with different training structures would produce significant variations in emergent performances.

Relational discrimination by pigeons in a go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli: a methodological note.

A go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli typically establishes emergent behavior that parallels in structure and typical outcome that of conventional tests for symmetric, transitive, and equivalence relations in normally capable adults. The present study employed a go/no-go compound stimulus procedure with pigeons. During training, pecks to two-component compounds A1B1, A2B2, B1C1, and B2C2 were followed by food.

Emergent conditional relations in a Go/No-Go procedure: figure-ground and stimulus-position compound relations.

Past research has demonstrated emergent conditional relations using a go/no-go procedure with pairs of figures displayed side-by-side on a computer screen. The present study sought to extend applications of this procedure. In Experiment 1, we evaluated whether emergent conditional relations could be demonstrated when two-component stimuli were displayed in figure-ground relationships-abstract figures displayed on backgrounds of different colors.

Conditional relations with compound abstract stimuli using a go/no-go procedure.

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether emergent conditional relations could be established with a go/no-go procedure using compound abstract stimuli. The procedure was conducted with 6 adult humans. During training, responses emitted in the presence of certain stimulus compounds (A1B1, A2B2, A3B3, B1C1, B2C2, and B3C3) were followed by reinforcing consequences (points); responses emitted in the presence of other compounds (A1B2, A1B3, A2B1, A2B3, A3B1, A3B2, B1C2, B1C3, B2C1, B2C3, B3C1 and B3C2) were not (i.