Generalization of cross-modal stimulus equivalence classes: Operant processes as components in human category formation

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 267-279

  Lane, Scott D ^a   Clow, Julie K ^a   Innis, Andrew ^a   Critchfield, Thomas S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Categorization; College students; Computer mouse click; Rating procedure; Stimulus equivalence; Stimulus generalization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COGNITION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; COGNITION; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMANS; PHOTIC STIMULATION;

EID: 0032215396     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1998.70-267     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Adams, B. J., Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1993). Formation of generalized equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 43, 553-566.
2. Astley, S. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1998). Novelty and functional equivalence in superordinate categorization by pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 26, 125-138.
3. Bush, K. M. (1993). Stimulus equivalence and cross-modal transfer. The Psychological Record, 43, 567-584.
4. Carpenter, G. A., & Grossberg, S. (1990). Neural dynamics of category learning and recognition: Structural invariants, reinforcement, and evoked potentials. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, S. M. Kosslyn, & D. B. Mumford (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Computational and clinical approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation (Vol. 9, pp. 23-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Carpenter, G. A., Grossberg, S., & Reynolds, J. H. (1991). Adaptive pattern classification and universal recoding, I: Parallel development and coding of neural feature detectors. In G. A. Carpenter & S. Grossberg (Eds.), Pattern recognition by self-organizing neural networks (pp. 211-236). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Critchfield, T. S., Tucker, J. A., & Vuchinich, R. E. (in press). Self-report methods. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior. New York: Plenum.
7. Dougherty, D. H., & Wixted, J. T. (1996). Detecting a nonevent: Delayed presence-versus-absence discrimi-nation in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 81-92.
8. Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Brown, J. B., & Verhave, T. (1993). The generalization of emergent relations in equivalence classes: Stimulus substitutability. The Psychological Record, 43, 235-254.
9. Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Adams, B. J., Brown, J. B., & Verhave, T. (1997). Predicting the extension of equivalence classes from primary generalization gradients: The merger of equivalence classes and perceptual classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 67-91.
10. Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Adams, B. J., & Verhave, T. (1991). Stimulus generalization and equivalence classes: A model for natural categories. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 305-312.
11. Gescheider, G. A. (1985). Psychophysics: Method, theory, and application. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Harnad, S. (1987). The induction and representation of categories. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (pp. 535-565). New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Harnad, S. (1996). Experimental analysis of naming behavior cannot explain naming capacity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 262-264.
14. Herrnstein, R. (1984). Objects, categories, and discriminative stimuli. In H. L. Roitblatt, T. G. Beaver, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Animal cognition (pp. 233-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Herrnstein, R. (1990). Levels of stimulus control: A functional approach. Cognition, 37, 133-166.
16. Lane, S. D., & Critchfield, T. S. (1996). Verbal self-reports of emergent relations in a stimulus equivalence procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 355-374.
17. Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1992). The nonequivalence of behavioral and mathematical equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 227-241.
18. Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1996). Naming is not (necessary for) stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 312-314.
19. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
20. Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5-22.
21. Smith, E. E. (1995). Concepts and categorization. In E. E. Smith & D. N. Osherson (Eds.), Thinking: An invitation to cognitive science (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 3-33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Spradlin, J. E., & Saunders, R. R. (1986). The development of stimulus classes using match-to-sample procedures: Sample classification versus comparison classification. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 41-58.
23. Stromer, R., & Mackay, H. A. (1992). Spelling and emergent picture-printed word relations established with delayed identity matching to complex samples. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 893-904.
24. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
25. Urcuioli, P. J. (1996). Acquired equivalences in mediated generalization in pigeon's matching to sample. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 55-70). New York: Elsevier.
26. Urcuioli, P. J., DeMarse, T. B., & Lionello, K. M. (1998). Transfer of performance to new comparison choices following differential outcome matching-to-sample. Animal Learning & Behavior, 26, 139-153.
27. Vaughan, W., Jr. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 36-42.
28. Wasserman, E. A., & Bhatt, R. S. (1992). Conceptualization of natural and artificial stimuli by pigeons. In W. K. Honig & J. G. Fetterman (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of stimulus control (pp. 203-224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Wasserman, E. A., Kiedinger, R. E., & Bhatt, R. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artificial stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 235-246.
30. Wright, A. A. (1992). The study of animal cognitive processes. In W. K. Honig & J. G. Fetterman (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of stimulus control (pp. 225-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Zentall, T. R., Sherburne, L. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1993). Common coding by pigeons in a many-to-one delayed matching task as evidenced by facilitation and interference effects. Animal Learning & Behavior, 21, 233-237.