scholarly journals Using Stimulus-Equivalence Technology to Teach Skills About Nutritional Content

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.

Author(s):  
Guro Granerud ◽  
Erik Arntzen

AbstractIn 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.


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

Nature ◽  
1966 ◽  
Vol 210 (5031) ◽  
pp. 117-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. ETTLINGER ◽  
C. B. BLAKEMORE

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>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document