Saunders R R, Wachter J, Spradlin J E
Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas, Parsons 67357.
J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jan;49(1):95-115. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-95.
Two eight-member equivalence classes of visual stimuli were established during three phases of a training program. In Phase 1, two training arrangements were compared. In one, 3 subjects were taught on different trials to select from a single pair of comparison stimuli (A1, A2) in response to eight sample stimuli that were trained in pairs (B1, B2; C1, C2; D1, D2; E1, E2). In the second arrangement, subjects were taught to select from four pairs of comparisons (B1, B2; C1, C2; D3, D2; E2, E2) in response to two samples (A1, A2). Training with the single pair of comparison stimuli resulted in the development of equivalence relations (B1C1, B2C2, D1B1, D2B2, B1E1, B2E2, C1D1, C2D2, C1E1, C2E2, D1E1, D2E2, and their reciprocals) between the sample stimuli without direct training of these relations. In the other training arrangement, these relations among the comparison stimuli developed in the performance of 1 subject only. In Phase 2, three new pairs of stimuli (F1, F2; G1, G2; H1, H2) were substituted for three of the original pairs (B1, B2; C1, C2; D1, D2) and the training arrangements for the groups were reversed. Following training, the performances that showed equivalence relations on the probes in the first phase also showed equivalence relations in the second phase. If such relations did not develop in the first phase, they did not do so in the second phase. In Phase 3, relations between stimuli across the two previous phases (e.g., B1F1, B2F2, B1G1, B2H2, C1F1, etc.) were investigated. The 4 subjects whose performances showed the development of these relations were taught to select one stimulus from each class (E1 and E2) in response to a verbal label (I1 and I2) and then were tested to see if the verbal label controlled responding to the remaining members of the class (e.g., I1A1, I2A2, I1B1, I2B2, etc.). For 3 subjects, this generalized control occurred; for the 4th, generalization occurred only after verbal training with a second pair of visual stimuli (F1 and F2). In retests several months later, these auditory-visual relations were found to be intact or, if not, were recovered without direct training.
在一个训练项目的三个阶段中，建立了两个由八个视觉刺激组成的等价类。在第一阶段，比较了两种训练安排。在一种安排中，教导3名受试者在不同试验中从一对比较刺激（A1、A2）中进行选择，以响应八对训练过的样本刺激（B1、B2；C1、C2；D1、D2；E1、E2）。在第二种安排中，教导受试者从四对比较刺激（B1、B2；C1、C2；D3、D2；E2、E2）中进行选择，以响应两个样本（A1、A2）。使用一对比较刺激进行训练导致在没有对这些关系进行直接训练的情况下，样本刺激之间形成了等价关系（B1C1、B2C2、D1B1、D2B2、B1E1、B2E2、C1D1、C2D2、C1E1、C2E2、D1E1、D2E2及其倒数）。在另一种训练安排中，这些比较刺激之间的关系仅在一名受试者的表现中形成。在第二阶段，用三对新的刺激（F1、F2；G1、G2；H1、H2）替换了原来的三对刺激（B1、B2；C1、C2；D1、D2），并将两组的训练安排进行了颠倒。训练后，在第一阶段的探测中表现出等价关系的表现，在第二阶段也表现出等价关系。如果这种关系在第一阶段没有形成，那么在第二阶段也不会形成。在第三阶段，研究了前两个阶段中刺激之间的关系（例如，B1F1、B2F2、B1G1、B2H2、C1F1等）。教导表现出这些关系形成的4名受试者根据言语标签（I1和I2）从每个类别（E1和E2）中选择一个刺激，然后进行测试，以查看言语标签是否控制对该类别的其余成员的反应（例如，I1A1、I2A2、I1B1、I2B2等）。对于3名受试者，这种广义控制发生了；对于第4名受试者，只有在对第二对视觉刺激（F1和F2）进行言语训练后才发生了泛化。在几个月后的重新测试中，发现这些视听关系是完整的，或者如果不完整，则在没有直接训练的情况下恢复了。
