Transfer and Stimulus Equivalence Classes Derived From Simultaneously Presented S+ and S- Stimuli

2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Smeets ◽  
Dermot Barnes-Holmes ◽  
Mary Nagle
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 912-968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asieh Abolpour Mofrad ◽  
Anis Yazidi ◽  
Hugo L. Hammer ◽  
Erik Arntzen

Stimulus equivalence (SE) and projective simulation (PS) study complex behavior, the former in human subjects and the latter in artificial agents. We apply the PS learning framework for modeling the formation of equivalence classes. For this purpose, we first modify the PS model to accommodate imitating the emergence of equivalence relations. Later, we formulate the SE formation through the matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure. The proposed version of PS model, called the equivalence projective simulation (EPS) model, is able to act within a varying action set and derive new relations without receiving feedback from the environment. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that the field of equivalence theory in behavior analysis has been linked to an artificial agent in a machine learning context. This model has many advantages over existing neural network models. Briefly, our EPS model is not a black box model, but rather a model with the capability of easy interpretation and flexibility for further modifications. To validate the model, some experimental results performed by prominent behavior analysts are simulated. The results confirm that the EPS model is able to reliably simulate and replicate the same behavior as real experiments in various settings, including formation of equivalence relations in typical participants, nonformation of equivalence relations in language-disabled children, and nodal effect in a linear series with nodal distance five. Moreover, through a hypothetical experiment, we discuss the possibility of applying EPS in further equivalence theory research.


1997 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Egli ◽  
Beth Joseph ◽  
Travis Thompson

The transfer of social attributions within stimulus-equivalence classes comprised of photographs of children was examined. Five children (mean age: 4 yr., 2 mo.) were taught conditional discriminations sufficient for the emergence of two 3-member equivalence classes (A1-B1-C1 and A2-B2-C2). Social attributions were established by using two photographs to identify fictional children who could facilitate (B1) or prevent (B2) the participant's reinforcement on a computer game. Transfer of attribution was assessed by asking the participants questions regarding predicted social behaviors by children in all six photographs. One set of questions pertained explicitly to the response-options of the computer game; a second set referred to other prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Three children chose photographs in response to questions consistent with their experience with members B1 and B2 of the shared equivalence class when the questions pertained to the computer game. One subject also selected photographs in response to questions about predicted prosocial and antisocial behavior which reflected her experience with the B1 and B2 photographs.


1998 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph J. Plaud ◽  
George A. Gaither ◽  
Michael Franklin ◽  
Louise A. Weller ◽  
Jeannie Barth

2018 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 380-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elberto A. Plazas ◽  
Carlos-Wilcen Villamil

Author(s):  
Felix Högnason ◽  
Erik Arntzen

AbstractIn an attempt to limit the opportunity to engage in mediating behavior, two groups of adult participants received preliminary training in identity matching with limited hold levels (LH) for responding of 0.7 s for the sample and 1.2 s for the comparisons. The two groups were subsequently trained to form three 5-member classes, using the same LH levels, where the A, B, D, and E stimuli were abstract stimuli, and the C stimuli were meaningful pictures. In two tests for emergent relations, the LH for Group Short was unchanged, whereas 5 s were added to the LH for the comparisons for Group Long. None of the participants in Group Short responded in accordance with stimulus equivalence in either of the two tests. In Group Long, one participant responded in accordance with stimulus equivalence in the first test, and an additional eight participants formed equivalence classes in the second test.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document