1 / 31

THE TRANSFER OF SAMENESS AND OPPOSITION CONTEXTUAL-CUE FUNCTIONS THROUGH EQUIVALENCE CLASSES

THE TRANSFER OF SAMENESS AND OPPOSITION CONTEXTUAL-CUE FUNCTIONS THROUGH EQUIVALENCE CLASSES. Núcleo Paradigma de Análise do Comportamento – São Paulo, Brazil. William Perez Roberta Kovac Yara Nico Adriana Fidalgo Daniel Caro. STIMULI FUNCTIONS IN A RELATIONAL NETWORK. A.

tejana
Download Presentation

THE TRANSFER OF SAMENESS AND OPPOSITION CONTEXTUAL-CUE FUNCTIONS THROUGH EQUIVALENCE CLASSES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE TRANSFER OF SAMENESS AND OPPOSITION CONTEXTUAL-CUE FUNCTIONS THROUGH EQUIVALENCE CLASSES Núcleo Paradigma de Análise do Comportamento – São Paulo, Brazil William Perez Roberta Kovac Yara Nico Adriana Fidalgo Daniel Caro

  2. STIMULI FUNCTIONS IN A RELATIONAL NETWORK A relation (S, O, D) function (X, Y, Z) B C • Stimuli may have different functions: SD, Sav, Sref … (e.g., Augustson & Dougher, 1997; de Rose et al., 1988, Dougher et al., 1994; Hayes, Kohlemberg, & Hayes, 1991) • And might also be related in different ways: coordination,difference, comparison … (e.g. Dymond & Barnes, 1995; Steele & Hayes, 1991; Dougher et al., 2007; Gil, Luciano, Ruiz, Valdivia-Salas 2012)

  3. CONTEXTUAL CONTROL OF STIMULUS FUNCTIONS A Crel same difference f Y f X Cfunc B C f Z • Sidman (1992; 1994) • Hayes (1991) • Hayes & Hayes (1992) • Dougher et al. (2002) • Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche (2001)

  4. CONTEXTUAL CONTROL AS A STIMULUS FUNCTION • Previous studies suggested that contextual control is a stimulus function itself. • Gatch & Osborne (1989) • Perez, Fidalgo, Nico, & Kovac (2012)

  5. CONTEXTUAL CONTROL AS A STIMULUS FUNCTION • Perez, Fidalgo, Nico, & Kovac (2012) • Established equivalence classes and different functions for one stimulus of each class. • The function at play would vary in accordance with a background color (Cfunc) • e.g., If yellow, given A1, press “Z” • e.g., If blue, given A1, press “X” ... • When the background colors were established as equivalent to certain line patterns (horizontal and vertical), such line patterns acquired the same function (Cfunc) of the background colors.

  6. OBJECTIVE • The transformation (or transfer) of contextual stimulus functions were already documented with: • contextual stimulus that control the arrangement of the relational network (Gatch & Osbourne, 1989). • contextual stimulus that control which stimulus function is operative in a given moment (Cfunc) (Perez, Fidalgo, Nico, & Kovac, 2012) • The present study aimed at extending previous findings on transformation of contextual stimulus functions for the stimuli that control the type of relation established within a relational network • Crel for Sameness and Opposition

  7. METHOD • Participants • 10 adults • Setting and equipment • A silent room • PC • Software in Visual Basic

  8. PROCEDURE • Procedure (similar to Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004) • Experimental Task • MTS using contextual stimulus • Stimuli (abstract figures, nonsense words) were presented sequentially • Feedback: • correct choices: +1 point and ascendant sound • incorrect choices: 0 point and a dissonant sound

  9. 1) ESTABLISHING THE CONTEXTUAL CUES (CREL) (SAME) (OPPOSITE)

  10. 1) ESTABLISHING THE CONTEXTUAL CUES (CREL) (SAME) (OPPOSITE)

  11. 2) CONTEXTUAL CUE TEST Without feedback

  12. RESULTS

  13. 3) ARBITRARY TRAINING B2 B1 A1 C1 C2 TRAINED RELATIONS

  14. 4) DERIVED RELATIONS (TEST) B2 B1 A1 C1 C2 TRAINED RELATIONS DERIVED RELATIONS

  15. RESULTS

  16. 5) Establishing equivalent contextual cues SAME equivalence OPPOSITE equivalence

  17. 5) Establishing equivalent contextual cues SAME OPPOSITE * Delayed matching-to-sample task (0 s)

  18. RESULTS

  19. 6) TRANSFER OF FUNCTION (CREL) TEST B2 B1 A1 C1 C2 TRAINED RELATIONS DERIVED RELATIONS

  20. 6) TRANSFER OF FUNCTION (CREL) TEST B2 B1 A1 C1 C2 TRAINED RELATIONS DERIVED RELATIONS

  21. 6) TRANSFER OF FUNCTION (CREL) TEST (SAME) (OPPOSITE)

  22. 7) TRANSFORMATION OF “MEANING” B2 B1 ? ? A1 GOOD C1 C2 TRAINED RELATIONS ? ? * Bortoloti & de Rose DERIVED RELATIONS

  23. 7) TRANSFORMATION OF “MEANING” B2 B1 ? HOT A1 ? C1 C2 TRAINED RELATIONS ? ? DERIVED RELATIONS * Bortoloti & de Rose, 2012

  24. 7) TRANSFORMATION OF MEANING Fill the blanks: 1) If MURBEN is “soft”, then: CIPHER =_________ RIGUND =_________ LEWOLY =_________ BETRCT =_________ 2) If CIPHER é “good”, then: MURBEN =_________ RIGUND =_________ BETRCT =_________ LEWOLY =_________ 3) Se RIGUND é “full”, then: LEWOLY =_________ BETRCT =_________ CIPHER =_________ MURBEN =_________ • 15 questions • 3 different meanings for each stimulus

  25. RESULTS control = didn’t pass the derivation test

  26. DISCUSSION • The present study investigated the transfer of contextual-cue function (Crel) for sameness and opposition through equivalence classes. • The results of 5 participants suggest that Crel function might be indirectly acquired via transformation (or transfer) of function. • These results extend previous findings (e.g., Gatch & Osborne, 1989; Perez et al., 2012) on different contextual-stimulus functions that might be transferred through equivalence classes: • Contextual cues that (re)organize classes (Gatch & Osborne, 1989) • Cfunc (Perez et al., 2012) • Crel (present study)

  27. DISCUSSION • 5 participants didn’t pass on the derivation tests even after repeating the procedure several times. Some of them seamed to respond to contextually controlled equivalence classes (see Bush, Sidman, & de Rose, 1989; Gatch & Osborne, 1989) instead of relational networks based on sameness and opposition. • Future studies should: • investigate the effects of the number of exemplars used to establish the contextual cues upon the performance on the derivation test. • reverse the relational networks in order to corroborate the effects of the type of relation established on the transformation of function tests (Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004). • investigate the transformation (not the transfer) of contextual-cue functions

  28. DISCUSSION • The transformation of function, a fundamental feature of derived relational responding (Hayes et al., 2001; Whelan & Barnes, 2004), was attested by the transformation of meanings attributed to the arbitrary stimuli. • Future study should keep investigating how transformation of function can be verbally measured in tests of this sort (e.g., Bortoloti & de Rose, 2009).

  29. DISCUSSION • In order to account for the complexity of language and cognition, studies should consider that the expansion of relational networks might involve not only the stimuli that are related but also the contextual cues that specify the type of relational responding involved - i.e. contextual cues themselves (Cfunc, Crel) might also be part of relational networks and have their functions transformed.

  30. DISCUSSION • ACT interventions do not aim to change relational networks or stimulus functions themselves. Instead, their goal is to change the context in which such functions occur. • Comprehending how contextual functions (Cfun, Crel) work and how they can be transformed is an important step in order to account for the behavioral processes involved in ACT interventions. The present study is a small step in this direction.

  31. CONTACT THANK YOU E-MAIL: robertakovac@nucleoparadigma.com.br

More Related