Naming of Stimuli in Equivalence Class Formation in Children

In the present study, two typically developing 4-year-old children, Pete and Joe, were trained six conditional discriminations and tested for the formation of three 3-member equivalence classes. Pete and Joe did not establish the AC relation within 600 trials and were given two conditions of preliminary training, including naming of stimuli with two different stimulus sets. Pete started with preliminary training with common naming of stimuli, followed by conditional-discrimination training and testing for emergent relations, and continued with preliminary training on individual naming of stimuli, followed by the same training and testing as described previously. Joe experienced the same conditions but in reversed order. Pete responded in accordance with equivalence in the second round in the condition with common naming. In the first round of testing in the condition with individual naming, he responded in accordance with equivalence. In the condition with individual naming, Joe did not respond in accordance with stimulus equivalence but established all of the directly trained relations during training. In the condition with common naming, he responded in accordance with equivalence in the first round of testing. The results from the experiment support earlier findings that both common and individual naming could facilitate the emergence of equivalence classes.

Using Stimulus-Equivalence Technology to Teach Skills About Nutritional Content

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.