|
| Int'l Symposium - Derived Stimulus Relations Across Applied Settings |
| Tuesday, June 1, 2004 |
| 11:30 AM–12:50 PM |
| Beacon B |
| Area: EDC/AUT; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Geraldine Leader (National University of Ireland, Galway) |
| Discussant: Olive Healy (Cork CABAS School) |
| Abstract: . |
| |
| Stimulus Equivalence and Non-Arbitrary Relational Responding in Children |
| GERALDINE LEADER (National University of Ireland, Galway), Ian T. Stewart (National University of Ireland, Galway), Dermot Barnes-Holmes (National University of Ireland, Maynooth) |
| Abstract: The provision of competing formal (color) relational response options during equivalence testing has been shown to interfere with the emergence of equivalence responding. Previous studies in this area have employed adults as subjects. The purpose of the present study was to attempt to examine this effect in normally developing children. Three groups of school-age children were exposed to three blocks each of training and testing for the formation of three 3-member equivalence relations. All three groups were trained using black and white stimuli. Group 1 were then immediately exposed to a color interference equivalence test in which the sample was always differently colored from the experimenter-designated equivalent comparison, but was the same color as one of the non-equivalent comparisons, thus producing a conflict between arbitrary and non-arbitrary relational control. Group 2 received black and white symmetry testing before receiving this color interference test, while Group 3 received black and white symmetry and equivalence testing before receiving the color interference test. As in previous studies conducted with adults, results revealed differences in levels of equivalence responding during the final color interference test based on (i) levels of prior derived relational testing and (ii) number of blocks of training / testing received. |
| |
| Derived Relational Responding in Accordance with the Relations of Better and Worse by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder |
| MARCIA WARD (Drogheda CABAS School), Olive Healy (Cork CABAS School), John Tanner Blackledge (University of Nevada, Reno), Cynthia R. Blackledge (University of Nevada, Reno), Geraldine Leader (National University of Ireland, Galway) |
| Abstract: A stimulus preference assessment was first conducted rank ordering the reinforcement value of 6 stimuli for each subject. Based on this ordering subjects were directly trained as to which of the stimuli were better and worse. A minimal number of direct relations were trained before mutual-like and combinatorial-like entailment responses were tested for. New stimulus sets were introduced until the subject could reliably demonstrate mutual and combinatorial-like entailment given the minimal necessary direct training. The next phase would demonstrate that the subject could respond mutually and combinatorially to relations between stimuli that are not formally related on a dimension of preference. Values were randomly assigned to stimuli labeled A,B,C. Training was given using matching-to-sample to train better and worse based on the random assignment A > B, C < B. This was followed by a test for mutual and combinatorial entailment in which the stimuli were placed in front of the subject and the following questions were asked, which is better?, which is worse? Once the subject makes the correct discriminations a test for transformation of reinforcement function was conducted in a novel context and by a novel experimenter. The next phase involved a test for transformation of reinforcement function. Using 3 new arbitrary stimuli the subject is told that stimulus A is better than stimulus B and stimulus B is better than stimulus C. With all 3 stimuli on the table the subjects is asked which one he/she would like to receive as reinforcement for performing a task. After one is picked it is removed and the remaining two stimuli are given as choices for reinforcement. Following this phase is a test for transformation of self-response and reinforcement functions in which 3 new arbitrary stimuli are identified by the student in rank order from best to worst no reinforcement is given. The subject is again asked which of the stimuli he/she would like to earn. Following this is a transformation of self-response function in which the subject rank orders three novel stimuli no reinforcement is given. The following relations are tested: A > B, C < A, B < A, C < B by placing two of the stimuli at a time on the table and asking which is better?/ which is worse? The results demonstrate that students with autism diagnoses demonstrate the relational responses of better and worse and also demonstrate transformation of stimulus function in accordance with those relations. |
| |
| Teaching Money Skills Through Stimulus Class Formation |
| SUSAN WALLACE (Cork CABAS School), Geraldine Leader (National University of Ireland, Galway), Olive Healy (Cork CABAS School), Harry A. Mackay (E.K. Shriver Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School) |
| Abstract: This experiment involved investigating the utility of the matching-to-sample training procedure in establishing monetary equivalence. The stimuli consisted of real Irish Coins, corresponding printed words and symbols. In the first stage of this experiment the matching-to-sample training procedure was used to establish two three-member equivalence classes (A1B1C1 and A2B2C2). In this instance A1 denoted the symbol1, B1 the printed word euro, and C1, the euro coin. Similarly A2 denoted the symbol 10C, B2 the printed words ten cent and C3, the ten cent coin. In subsequent stages of this experiment the matching-to-sample training procedure was used to gradually increase class size to include D1(two fifty cent coins), D2 (two five cent coins), E1(ten, ten cent coins), E2 (ten, one cent coins), F1(twenty 5 cent coins) and F2 (five, two cent coins). Equivalence tests were followed by tests for generalisation. Generalisation tests involved simple requests "give me a euro coin". Participants were successful of all tests for equivalence and generalization. Following the successful use of the matching-to-sample procedure to produce momentary equivalence the procedure was replicated with other coin combinations. |
|
| |