Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Naming in conditional discrimination and stimulus equivalence.

K J Saunders1

  • 1Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
|May 1, 1989
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Correction: In-school eyecare in special education settings has measurable benefits for children's vision and behaviour.

PloS one·2019
Same author

In-school eyecare in special education settings has measurable benefits for children's vision and behaviour.

PloS one·2019
Same author

A lack of vision: evidence for poor communication of visual problems and support needs in education statements/plans for children with SEN.

Public health·2015
Same author

A conceptual analysis of request teaching procedures for individuals with severely limited verbal repertoires.

The Analysis of verbal behavior·2012
Same author

Sampling and measurement methods for a study of childhood refractive error in a UK population.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2010
Same author

Refractive error and visual impairment in school children in Northern Ireland.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2010

This study challenges the demonstration of stimulus equivalence in monkeys, finding that trained response patterns, not emergent stimulus relations, controlled behavior. The research suggests alternative methods are needed to study stimulus-stimulus learning.

Area of Science:

  • Behavioral Psychology
  • Animal Cognition
  • Stimulus Equivalence Research

Background:

  • Previous research (McIntire, Cleary, & Thompson, 1987) trained monkeys on conditional relations involving sample stimuli, comparison stimuli, and distinctive response patterns.
  • These trained relations were interpreted as demonstrating stimulus equivalence, a key concept in understanding complex learned associations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically re-evaluate the interpretation of emergent relations in the McIntire et al. (1987) study.
  • To investigate whether the observed performances reflected true stimulus equivalence or control by trained response-stimulus contingencies.
  • To propose a new paradigm for assessing stimulus-stimulus versus response-stimulus relations.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of the matching-to-sample procedure and conditional discrimination training used by McIntire et al. (1987).

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of test trials for emergent relations (A-C, C-A, B-A, C-B, B-B) and the persistence of trained differential response patterns.
  • Theoretical critique of the methodology in relation to established principles of conditional discrimination.

    • Main Results:

    • Monkey performance on tested relations was as accurate as on trained relations, with trained differential response patterns maintained.
    • The findings suggest that control was exerted by response-stimulus relations, not emergent stimulus-stimulus equivalence.
    • The study concludes that the original procedure did not demonstrate emergent stimulus-stimulus relations.

    Conclusions:

    • The training procedure used in the McIntire et al. (1987) study likely confounded response control with stimulus equivalence.
    • The results indicate that the methodology may not be a suitable analogy for emergent stimulus-stimulus relations observed in human studies.
    • A revised experimental paradigm is proposed to better differentiate between stimulus-stimulus and response-stimulus associative learning.