Simple discrimination training with differential responses to establish functional and equivalence classes with preschool children

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela S. Canovas ◽  
Paula Debert ◽  
Caio F. Miguel
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Equivalence Classes ◽  
Simple Discrimination ◽  
Differential Responses

The Expansion of Equivalence Classes Through Simple Discrimination Training and Fading

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

The Use of Varying High-Confusion versus Low-Confusion Sequences to Teach Letter Discrimination

1976 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-171
Author(s):  
Rosemery O. Nelson ◽  
Kenneth S. Wein
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Matching To Sample ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Treatment Control ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Training Groups ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Treatment Control Group

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.

Transfer of Social Attributions in Stimulus Equivalence Classes by Preschool Children

1997 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Egli ◽  
Beth Joseph ◽  
Travis Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Antisocial Behavior ◽  
Equivalence Class ◽  
Stimulus Equivalence ◽  
Computer Game ◽  
Equivalence Classes ◽  
Antisocial Behaviors ◽  
Conditional Discriminations ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Social Attributions

The transfer of social attributions within stimulus-equivalence classes comprised of photographs of children was examined. Five children (mean age: 4 yr., 2 mo.) were taught conditional discriminations sufficient for the emergence of two 3-member equivalence classes (A1-B1-C1 and A2-B2-C2). Social attributions were established by using two photographs to identify fictional children who could facilitate (B1) or prevent (B2) the participant's reinforcement on a computer game. Transfer of attribution was assessed by asking the participants questions regarding predicted social behaviors by children in all six photographs. One set of questions pertained explicitly to the response-options of the computer game; a second set referred to other prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Three children chose photographs in response to questions consistent with their experience with members B1 and B2 of the shared equivalence class when the questions pertained to the computer game. One subject also selected photographs in response to questions about predicted prosocial and antisocial behavior which reflected her experience with the B1 and B2 photographs.

Transfer of Training after Fading and Standard Discrimination Training

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 799-806
Author(s):  
Susan Ilene Taub ◽  
Thomas L. Whitman
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Transfer Of Training ◽  
Discrimination Task ◽  
Dominant Dimension ◽  
Discrimination Group ◽  
Better Than

Standard discrimination and fading techniques were utilized to teach preschool children a two-choice discrimination task in which their non-dominant dimension (color or form) was relevant for solution. The fading group performed better than the standard discrimination group on both an initial and a later generalization-discrimination task. On the generalization task, the superiority of the fading technique was limited to form-dominant Ss. When retested for dimensional dominance after 1 wk. fading significantly decreased Ss' choices of their previously dominant dimensions while the standard discrimination trained Ss showed no change in preference.

scholarly journals Simple discrimination training and conditional discrimination response

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 250
Author(s):  
Vicente Pérez ◽  
Eduardo Polín
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Conditional Stimulus ◽  
Conditional Discrimination ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Matching To Sample ◽  
Simple Discrimination ◽  
Conditional Discriminations ◽  
Control Variables ◽  
Verbal Skills ◽  
Acquisition Speed

<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>

Emergent Simple Discrimination in Children: Transfer of Stimulus Control under Non-Reinforced Conditions

1991 ◽  
Vol 43 (4b) ◽  
pp. 361-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Smeets
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Test Stimulus ◽  
Stimulus Control ◽  
Training Stimulus ◽  
Simple Discrimination ◽  
Correct Stimulus ◽  
Transfer Of Stimulus Control ◽  
Incorrect Stimulus

Previous research on humans suggests that simple discriminations may emerge if both stimuli, B1 and B2, are compounded with the stimuli of a previously trained discrimination, A1 (S+) and A2 (S-), and responding to the compounds, B1A1 and B2A2, is reinforced. Two questions were addressed. First, do simple discriminations also emerge if (a) only one stimulus, B1, is compounded with a training stimulus, A1 (S+) or A2 (S-); or with both training stimuli, A1 (S+) and A2 (S-); and (b) neither B1 nor B2 is compounded with the training stimuli? Second, do simple discriminations emerge if reinforcement in the presence of the AB compounds is withheld? Normal preschool children served as subjects. The study consisted of six experiments. Transfer occurred in all experiments regardless of whether both test stimuli, one test stimulus, or none of the test stimuli were compounded with the training stimuli under non-reinforced conditions. The results can be described by the following rules: Respond to any stimulus that includes a component of a “correct” stimulus of a previous discrimination. Otherwise, respond away from the stimulus that incorporates a component from an “incorrect” stimulus of a previous discrimination. The implications of data for sensory pre-conditioning and language-based accounts are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document