Discerning equivalence relations from displayed but not previously learned stimulus pairs

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL
Erik Arntzen , Vanessa Ayres-Pereira , David W. Dickins
{"title":"Discerning equivalence relations from displayed but not previously learned stimulus pairs","authors":"Erik Arntzen ,&nbsp;Vanessa Ayres-Pereira ,&nbsp;David W. Dickins","doi":"10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A method was devised to determine whether participants could discern stimulus equivalence (SE) relations between stimuli without prior training, but simply via visual inspection of an array of premise pairs. On each of a series of slides nine circles containing different colours were paired together in boxes in different ways on each slide to embody three 3-member equivalence classes. Below this “study” array of boxes were two “choice” boxes, with two colours derived from the same equivalence class in one, and colours from two different classes in the other. Participants were instructed to choose the box in which the colours were seemingly combined “according to the pairs above”. Then on a final “sort” slide they were asked, in relation to its array, to allocate the nine colours into groups of their own choosing. Twenty-two undergraduate students, some naïve and some with some prior experience of standard equivalence experiments, participated in this experiment. Participants 1–11, in addition to trials in which the within-class choice was a symmetric or transitive pair, were given extra “baseline” trials with a simple copy of one of the array pairs in the within-class choice box. Such “baseline” trials were omitted for the remaining participants. On the choice trials about half of the participants systematically selected the within-class alternatives. There was some indication that prior experience made this more likely, whereas inclusion of “baseline” trials seemingly had a negative effect. Participants who systematically selected the within-class alternatives mostly also sorted the colours into the appropriate three equivalence groups. Some methodological refinements and extensions of this “plain sight” procedure are proposed, and the analytical potential of comparing performance on these with that on standard MTS procedures is discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47305,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Motivation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Motivation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002396902400095X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A method was devised to determine whether participants could discern stimulus equivalence (SE) relations between stimuli without prior training, but simply via visual inspection of an array of premise pairs. On each of a series of slides nine circles containing different colours were paired together in boxes in different ways on each slide to embody three 3-member equivalence classes. Below this “study” array of boxes were two “choice” boxes, with two colours derived from the same equivalence class in one, and colours from two different classes in the other. Participants were instructed to choose the box in which the colours were seemingly combined “according to the pairs above”. Then on a final “sort” slide they were asked, in relation to its array, to allocate the nine colours into groups of their own choosing. Twenty-two undergraduate students, some naïve and some with some prior experience of standard equivalence experiments, participated in this experiment. Participants 1–11, in addition to trials in which the within-class choice was a symmetric or transitive pair, were given extra “baseline” trials with a simple copy of one of the array pairs in the within-class choice box. Such “baseline” trials were omitted for the remaining participants. On the choice trials about half of the participants systematically selected the within-class alternatives. There was some indication that prior experience made this more likely, whereas inclusion of “baseline” trials seemingly had a negative effect. Participants who systematically selected the within-class alternatives mostly also sorted the colours into the appropriate three equivalence groups. Some methodological refinements and extensions of this “plain sight” procedure are proposed, and the analytical potential of comparing performance on these with that on standard MTS procedures is discussed.
从显示而非先前学习的刺激对中辨别等效关系
我们设计了一种方法,以确定受试者是否能够在没有事先训练的情况下,仅通过目测一系列前提对来辨别刺激之间的刺激等价(SE)关系。在一系列幻灯片中,每张幻灯片上都有九个不同颜色的圆圈以不同的方式配对在方框中,以体现三个三元等价类。在这个 "研究 "方框阵列下面有两个 "选择 "方框,一个方框中的两种颜色来自同一等价类,另一个方框中的颜色来自两个不同的等价类。参与者被要求 "根据上述配对 "选择其中的颜色。然后,在最后一张 "排序 "幻灯片上,要求他们根据幻灯片的排列,将九种颜色分配到自己选择的组中。22 名本科生参加了这一实验,其中有些是初学者,有些是有过标准等价实验经验的学 生。除了班内选择为对称或反向配对的试验外,1-11 号参与者还额外接受了 "基线 "试验,即在班内选择框中放置一个简单的阵列配对副本。其余被试的 "基线 "试验则被省略。在选择试验中,大约有一半的被试系统地选择了类内选项。有迹象表明,先前的经验增加了这种可能性,而加入 "基线 "试验则似乎产生了负面影响。系统选择类内备选方案的参与者大多也会将颜色分类到相应的三个等价组中。本文对这一 "一目了然 "的程序提出了一些方法上的改进和扩展,并讨论了将其与标准 MTS 程序进行比较的分析潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: Learning and Motivation features original experimental research devoted to the analysis of basic phenomena and mechanisms of learning, memory, and motivation. These studies, involving either animal or human subjects, examine behavioral, biological, and evolutionary influences on the learning and motivation processes, and often report on an integrated series of experiments that advance knowledge in this field. Theoretical papers and shorter reports are also considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信