scholarly journals Simple discrimination training and conditional discrimination response

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 250
Author(s):  
Vicente Pérez ◽  
Eduardo Polín

<span lang="EN-US">The conditional discrimination is a procedure the use of which is widely extended in the EAB, especially those known as “Matching to Sample”. Although it has been used with a wide variety of species, the behavior of humans with verbal skills in these kinds of tasks may involve other control variables which are different from the scheduled contingencies of four terms. The aim of this work was to verify if conditional discriminations could be acquired, although reinforcement contingencies did not involve the sample. 109 psychology students, who were divided into three conditions, participated in the study. All of them were exposed to two blocks of training (A and B), with one sample and three comparisons, however, the sample did not really function as a conditional stimulus in 75% of the trials in block B. Simultaneity between sample and comparisons, as well as the requirement of a sample observation response, were manipulated resulting in three different conditions. The results showed no differences between acquisition speed in block A and block B in any condition, which suggests that the behavior of the participants was more controlled by the stimuli configuration than by the reinforcement contingencies.</span>

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-485
Author(s):  
Erik Arntzen ◽  
Jon Magnus Eilertsen

Abstract Twenty-two adult participants, assigned to three conditions, were trained nutrition knowledge (i.e., carbohydrate values) for different food items. In a stimulus sorting test, the participants were asked to sort stimuli (names of food items) into one of three different ranges of carbohydrate values ("less than 20", "20–40", "more than 40" gram per 100 gram). Conditional-discrimination training and testing followed the sorting test, and finally, a postclass formation sorting test of the stimuli used in the conditional-discrimination training. The conditional-discrimination training used tailored stimuli, that is, the food items that each of the participants categorized incorrectly in the sorting test. Participants exposed to Conditions 1 and 2 were trained on six conditional discriminations and tested for the formation of three 3-member classes. Conditions 2 and 3 had a “don’t know” option together with the three different ranges of carbohydrate values in the sorting for tailoring the stimuli. Participants exposed to Condition 3 trained were trained on 12 conditional discriminations and tested for the formation of three 5-member classes. The main findings showed that all but one of the participants responded correctly on at least one test for equivalence class formation and sorted the stimuli correctly in the postclass formation sorting test.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 532-543
Author(s):  
James W. Moore ◽  
Kayla Russo ◽  
Angelina Gilfeather ◽  
Heather M. Whipple ◽  
Greg Stanford

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 737-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte L. Carp ◽  
Sean P. Peterson ◽  
Amber J. Arkel ◽  
Anna I. Petursdottir ◽  
Einar T. Ingvarsson

2011 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Stella C. de Alcantara Gil ◽  
Thais Porlan de Oliveira ◽  
William J. McIlvane

1992 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lanny Fields ◽  
Sandra Newman ◽  
Barbara J. Adams ◽  
Thom Verhave

1976 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-171
Author(s):  
Rosemery O. Nelson ◽  
Kenneth S. Wein

Within Gibson's framework of teaching children to discriminate the distinctive features of letters, 28 preschool children were trained in letter discrimination using three different types of matching-to-sample alternatives: (1) high-confusion alternatives; (2) low-confusion alternatives; or (3) a sequence of low-, middle-, and high-confusion alternatives. On posttest 1, given after a criterion of two consecutive errorless training days, only the high-confusion and sequence groups significantly improved over their pretest scores as compared with the no-treatment control group. On posttest 2, however, given after a standard number of 20 training days, the performance of all three training groups, including low-confusion, was superior to the control group; no differences were found among the three training groups. The implications of these and other findings for letter discrimination training were discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document