Nartey Richard K, Arntzen Erik, Fields Lanny
Department for Behavioral Science, Oslo and Akershus University College, PO Box 4, St. Olavs Plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway.
Queens College and The Graduate School, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Learn Behav. 2015 Dec;43(4):342-53. doi: 10.3758/s13420-015-0183-0.
In the present study, equivalence class formation was influenced by the temporal point of inclusion of a meaningful stimulus when baseline relations were serially or sequentially trained, and much less so by the location of the meaningful stimulus in the nodal structure of the class. In Experiment 1, participants attempted to form three 3-node, 5-member classes (A→B→C→D→E) under the simultaneous protocol. After serially training the baseline relations AB, BC, CD, and DE, in that order, the emergence of all emergent relations was tested concurrently. In the A-as-PIC condition, A was meaningful stimulus and B to E were meaningless stimulus, and 60 % of the participants formed classes. In addition, classes were formed by 40 %, 70 %, 40 %, and 20 % of the participants in the B-as-PIC, C-as-PIC, D-as-PIC, and E-as-PIC groups, respectively. Thus, the likelihood of class formation could have been influenced by the location of a meaningful stimulus in the class structure and/or by its order of introduction during training. In Experiment 2, we controlled for any effect of order of introduction by the concurrent training of all of the baseline relations. Regardless of the location of the meaningful stimulus, 0-20 % of participants formed classes. Thus, the temporal order of introducing a meaningful stimulus was the primary modulator of the class-enhancing property of meaningful stimuli, and not the location of the meaningful stimulus in the class structure.
在本研究中，当按顺序或相继训练基线关系时，等价类的形成受有意义刺激纳入的时间点影响，而受该有意义刺激在类的节点结构中的位置影响要小得多。在实验1中，参与者尝试在同步协议下形成三个由5个成员组成的3节点类（A→B→C→D→E）。在按AB、BC、CD和DE的顺序相继训练基线关系后，同时测试所有衍生关系的出现情况。在A作为有意义刺激的条件下，A是有意义刺激，B到E是无意义刺激，60%的参与者形成了类。此外，在B作为有意义刺激、C作为有意义刺激、D作为有意义刺激和E作为有意义刺激的组中，分别有40%、70%、40%和20%的参与者形成了类。因此，类形成的可能性可能受有意义刺激在类结构中的位置和/或训练期间其引入顺序的影响。在实验2中，我们通过同时训练所有基线关系来控制引入顺序的任何影响。无论有意义刺激的位置如何，0 - 20%的参与者形成了类。因此，引入有意义刺激的时间顺序是有意义刺激增强类属性的主要调节因素，而不是有意义刺激在类结构中的位置。
