THE ROLE OF INTRAVERBAL NAMING IN
ARBITRARY VISUAL-VISUAL MATCHING TO SAMPLE
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
(Applied Behavior Analysis)
by
Patricia Santos
SUMMER
© 2013
Patricia Santos
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
THE ROLE OF INTRAVERBAL NAMING IN
ARBITRARY VISUAL-VISUAL MATCHING TO SAMPLE
A Thesis
by
Patricia Santos
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Caio Miguel, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Emily Wickelgren, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Anna Petursdottir, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Patricia Santos
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract of
THE ROLE OF INTRAVERBAL NAMING IN
ARBITRARY VISUAL-VISUAL MATCHING TO SAMPLE
by
Patricia Santos
Several studies have shown that human performance on matching-to-sample (MTS) tasks
may involve some form of verbal mediation. The current study evaluated the role of one
form of mediation, specifically intraverbal naming (Horne & Lowe, 1996) in a visualvisual MTS procedure across three sets of arbitrary stimuli. Six undergraduate students
(ages 20-32) were taught to tact the pictures with individual names, then to relate them
with one another through intraverbal training. They were taught to relate A1 with B1, A2
with B2, and A3 with B3 vocally. Afterwards, participants performed MTS tasks in
which A stimuli were presented as samples, and B stimuli as comparisons. Results
indicated high accuracy of matching performance corresponding to trained vocal
intraverbal relations. Furthermore, two out of six participants spontaneously vocalized
intraverbals while performing the task, suggesting that intraverbal naming mediated their
responses.
v
Moreover, when participants were instructed to vocalize while performing the MTS task,
they consistently stated the trained intraverbal relations while matching arbitrary pictures.
This study further supports a verbal mediation account of matching performances and
problem solving in general.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Caio Miguel, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Caio Miguel, for teaching
me the importance of integrity in the field of applied behavior analysis. He has instilled in
me a sense of responsibility to remain committed to the science, and this value will guide
me as I begin my endeavors in the clinical world.
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Wickelgren and Dr.
Petursdottir for their valuable contributions with the development of this research. Thank
you also to Dr. Penrod for her warm encouragement. In addition, I would like to thank
the Verbal Behavior Special Interest Group for their financial support.
I am grateful for Monica Ma for her significant involvement in this study, and to
Danika Zias and Adrienne Jennings for their assistance with data collection. I would like
to express my appreciation to Sherrene Fu, Sarah Kohlman, Kelly Quah, and Gregory
Lee, for their support and friendship. My graduate career would not have been this
memorable without them.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my mom, whose support,
encouragement, and sacrifices are the reasons why I’m here today. Finally, I want to
thank Christian Schmidt for believing in me and for helping me in every step of the way.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
Joint Control ........................................................................................................... 5
Naming .................................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 16
2. METHOD ................................................................................................................... 17
Participants and Setting......................................................................................... 17
Materials ............................................................................................................... 18
Dependent Measures and Experimental Design ................................................... 21
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Integrity ............................................... 23
Experimental Conditions ...................................................................................... 24
3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 31
Pre-training with Familiar Pictures ....................................................................... 33
Arbitrary Pictures .................................................................................................. 33
4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 50
Limitations and Future Research .......................................................................... 55
viii
Clinical Implications ............................................................................................. 57
Appendix A. MTS Pre- and Post-test (Pattern 1). .............................................................59
Appendix B. MTS Pre- and Post-test (Pattern 2)...............................................................60
References ..........................................................................................................................61
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Demographic Information Across Six Participants ................................................ 18
2. Intraverbal Relations Trained Vocally Across Sets .................................................22
3. Agreement and Treatment Integrity Across Participants ...................................... 24
4. Order of Experimental Phases ................................................................................ 25
5. Number of Trials Required to Reach Mastery Criterion for Tact and Intraverbal
Training Across Sets ...............................................................................................34
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Familiar pictures for pre-training .............................................................................19
2. Arbitrary stimuli for set 1 (top), set 2 (middle), and set 3 (bottom) ....................... 20
3. Figure 3. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and posttests for P1 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel),
and set 3 (lower panel) ............................................................................................35
4. Figure 4. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and posttests for P2 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel),
and set 3 (lower panel) ............................................................................................38
5. Figure 5. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and posttests for P3 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel),
and set 3 (lower panel) .............................................................................................41
6. Figure 6. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and posttests for P4 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel),
and set 3 (lower panel) ............................................................................................44
7. Figure 7. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and posttests for P5 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel),
and set 3 (lower panel) ............................................................................................47
xi
8. Figure 8. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and posttests for P6 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel),
and set 3 (lower panel) ............................................................................................49
xii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Skinner (1953) defined problem solving as “any behavior, which through the
manipulation of variables, makes the appearance of a solution more probable” (p. 246).
Some problems readily evoke target responses: for example, replying “9” to the question
“What is 3 times 3?” Other examples are stating one’s address when asked, or filling in
the blank in the statement “A, B, C…” with “D.” These responses are called intraverbals,
a type of verbal operant where the verbal response has no formal point-to-point
correspondence with the evoking verbal stimulus (Skinner, 1957). Other intraverbals
include singing songs, reciting poems, answering questions, and word associations. Word
associations are the result of one verbal response serving as discriminative stimulus
evoking another verbal response (Skinner, 1957). The response “cake,” for instance, may
be under the control of various verbal stimuli such as “dessert” or “birthday.” Some
intraverbals immediately evoke a verbal response, and therefore may not require any
form of mediational behavior or problem solving. The target response is simply a
discriminated operant under control of the verbal stimulus, perhaps because practicing
such a response is so extensive (Michael, Palmer, & Sundberg, 2011), or because certain
words have the tendency to occur together as “contiguous usage” (Skinner, 1957). A
child may say “fork” upon seeing a spoon or hearing someone say “spoon,” since those
stimuli frequently occur together (Skinner, 1957). Other intraverbals, however, may not
readily evoke a response because, in order to arrive at the solution, the strength of the
2
target responses must be supplemented by additional variables. Palmer (1991) suggested
several problem-solving strategies. Physically manipulating environmental variables is
one example, and includes behaviors such as organizing materials or underlining
important words, improving the lighting, shuffling letters or arranging cards by suit.
These manipulations improve the stimulus control exerted by relevant variables, and
reduce the control by irrelevant variables (Palmer, 1991). Mnemonic devices such as
employing acronyms also provide supplementary stimuli. The question, “What are the
colors of the rainbow in the right order?” can be supplemented by the acronym, ROY G.
BIV: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.
Despite Skinner (1957) and others (e.g., Palmer, 1991; Michael, et al., 2011)
addressing problem solving, the literature covering this topic is sparse. However, two
recent studies examined problem-solving strategies to teach typically developing
preschoolers in answering intraverbal categorization questions. Sautter, LeBlanc, Jay,
Goldsmith, and Carr (2011) examined a problem-solving strategy that involved selfprompting with intraverbal chains. Four children (ages 3-5) were asked to emit lists of
items (i.e., intraverbals) belonging to three categories (i.e., kitchen items, vehicles,
animals). For example, participants were presented with a question such as, “What are
some animals?” Training involved teaching participants to say subcategories (i.e., ocean,
farm, and zoo) when asked, “Tell me the groups of animals.” Then participants were
taught to emit four exemplars for each subcategory. For instance, participants were taught
to say “pig, cow, sheep, and horse” to the question “What are some farm animals?” They
were then trained to use a mediating response consisting of a series of intraverbal self-
3
prompts, which involved stating four rule statements: “Say the three groups, pick a group,
pick a different group, and say the last group.” These statements evoked previously
trained intraverbal chains. The rule “pick a group” evoked the intraverbal “ocean,” which
occasioned emitting “lobster, dolphin, shark, and fish.” Results indicated that participants
were able to emit accurate and sufficient responses when use of the rule was prompted
and modeled.
In a related study, Kissamore, Carr, and LeBlanc (2011) examined the effects of
visual imagining as a problem-solving strategy for answering similar intraverbal
questions with four typically developing children (4 to 5 years old). Several training
components were introduced prior to visual imagining training. Participants were taught
to tact pictures, and to match pictures to background scenes. Afterwards, they received
subcategory intraverbal training and multiple tact training. Finally, they were given the
visual imagining training, which consisted of the experimenter modeling the strategy.
The experimenter closed her eyes and stated that she saw an item (e.g., a horse), while a
corresponding item appeared simultaneously on the background screen (e.g., a farm).
Results indicated that participants did not emit a large number of categorization responses
until they were prompted to use the strategy. Sautter et al. (2011) and Kissamore et al.
(2011) demonstrated that teaching children to engage in sequences of steps or verbal
mediation as a problem-solving strategy facilitated accurate and sufficient responses to a
complex categorization problem.
Verbal mediation has also been studied extensively in teaching conditional
discrimination. Conditional discrimination occurs when behavior comes under the
4
operant control of one stimulus in the presence or context of another stimulus (Catania,
1998). Typically, conditional discrimination is investigated using a matching-to-sample
procedure (Sidman, 1971). In such a procedure, an individual is presented with a sample
stimulus and comparison stimuli from which he or she must select the correct comparison
in order to obtain the reinforcer. For instance, when presented with the sample A1, a
correct response is selecting B1 instead of B2 or B3; in the presence of A2 a correct
response is selecting B2 instead of B1 or B3, etc. Selecting the correct comparison (e.g.,
B1) is said to be conditional upon the presence of the sample (e.g., A1).
Several researchers suggested that human performance on MTS tasks might
involve some form of verbal mediation (e.g., Eikeseth & Smith, 1992; Goyos 2000;
Horne, Lowe, & Randle, 2004; Randell & Remington, 1999), while others argue that this
is a primitive function and does not involve other behavioral processes (e.g., Sidman,
1992; 2000; Schusterman & Kastak, 1993). There are at least two main accounts that
have investigated how verbal behavior may serve to mediate performance on an MTS
task: Joint Control (Lowenkron, 1998), and Naming (Horne & Lowe, 1996). These two
accounts both operate on Skinner’s (1957) verbal operants of the echoic, tact, intraverbal
and also listener relations. The term tact is defined as a verbal response evoked by a
nonverbal stimulus due to a history of generalized reinforcement. For example, because
saying “ball” in the presence of a ball has been followed by praise in the past, the
presence of a ball may evoke the verbal response “ball” as a tact. In the echoic relation,
there is point-to-point correspondence between stimulus and response. For example,
saying “goodbye” when a child hears the auditory stimulus “goodbye.” The intraverbal,
5
as mentioned previously, is a verbal operant where there is no point-to-point
correspondence between a verbal stimulus and response. Listener behavior involves
responses such as orienting, looking, pointing, and selecting a particular stimulus upon
hearing its dictated name produced by the speaker. For instance, when a caregiver says,
“doll,” the child hears the auditory stimulus “doll” and looks at the doll or picks up the
object as a listener. The child may also respond as a listener to her own behaviors. In the
presence of a doll, the child may behave as a speaker by tacting the item, “doll,” and
hearing herself say doll, occasions the listener behavior of reorienting to the doll or
looking at other items named “doll” in the room.
Joint Control
Lowenkron (1998) defined joint control as “a discrete event, a change in stimulus
control that occurs when a response topography evoked by one stimulus and preserved by
rehearsal is emitted under the additional control of a second stimulus” (p.332). Consider
the following example: when an individual is asked to retrieve a yellow scarf in a closet
full of clothes, the individual echoes the word by saying, “yellow scarf.” As the
individual searches for the item in the closet, she rehearses the name of the object,
“yellow scarf” (i.e., echoic) either overtly or covertly. When the individual sees a yellow
scarf, its presence evokes saying “yellow scarf” (i.e., tact). The effect of two
discriminative stimuli (i.e., tact and echoic) acting jointly exerts stimulus control over a
common response topography of selecting the corresponding item.
Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of the tact (e.g., Lowenkron,
1988; Lowenkron, 1995; Lowenkron 2006) and self-echoic (e.g., Degraaf & Schlinger
6
2012; Gutierrez, 2006; Lowenkron 1984; Sidener & Michael, 2006) components of joint
control in MTS tasks. These studies found that the selection of correct stimuli depended
on the accurate production of tacts to the stimuli, and that preventing the self-echoic
rehearsal impeded correct selection.
In a study by Lowenkron (1988), for instance, the researcher trained four
adolescents with intellectual disabilities to use hand signs to mediate an identitymatching performance. Participants were taught to tact each shape with a hand sign.
When the sample shape was presented, participants made the corresponding sign and
maintained it over the delay interval, leaving it unchanged as the comparisons were
presented, which led to the selection of correct comparisons. The hand signs to the
sample shapes may be described as a tact. Rehearsing the hand sign through the delay
interval and during the presentation of the comparison is a kind of “self-echoic”
repetition of the sample tact, and finally, making the hand sign to a comparison is again a
tact. The selection response was controlled by the joint control of the rehearsal of the
hand sign, and the tact evoked by the corresponding shape (i.e., hand sign), which share
the same topography.
Studies that have evaluated the role of joint control in MTS tasks (e.g.,
Lowenkron, 1984, 1988, 1989, 2006b) are limited and warrant replication (e.g., Sidener
& Michael, 2006). Nevertheless, results from these studies contributed to the evidence of
the importance of verbal mediation in problem solving. However, some of the results
from the joint control literature could also be interpreted through the naming account.
7
Naming
Another account that explains how verbal behavior may serve to mediate
performance in MTS tasks is naming. Horne and Lowe (1996) defined naming as a
higher order class of behavior that involves a bidirectional relation between “a class of
objects and events, and the speaker-listener behavior they occasion” (p. 200). An
individual with naming can respond both as a speaker (i.e., tact the stimulus) and a
listener (i.e., select the stimulus when labeled) when only one component was directly
trained (Miguel & Petursdottir, 2009). For instance, an individual who is taught to say
“giraffe” in the presence of the animal (i.e., tact training) can point or orient to the animal
(i.e., giraffe) upon hearing its dictated name in the absence of direct training (i.e., listener
training). Conversely, when taught to select a picture of a monkey when given its dictated
name (i.e., listener training), an individual with an established naming repertoire can then
tact the picture (i.e., say “monkey” in its presence) without additional training. The
establishment of naming occurs through the incidental reinforcement of both components
(i.e., speaker and listener), even though only one component was deliberately reinforced.
When reinforcing the speaker behavior of tacting a stimulus, the listener behavior of
looking or orienting to the stimulus is also incidentally reinforced. Accordingly, when
listener behavior is reinforced, for instance, orienting to the stimulus upon hearing its
dictated name, the individual may echo the name heard, and the self-echoic response is
also reinforced.
Common Naming
The role of naming as a verbal mediation strategy was demonstrated by studies
8
that evaluated classifying or grouping objects and stimuli that have no physical
similarities referred to as categorization (Miguel & Petursdottir, 2009). Common naming
is involved in categorization tasks, in which stimuli are given the same name based on
their class membership. For example, an individual may teach a child to tact a puzzle, a
doll, and an action figure as “toy,” and another group of items as “vehicle,” and different
group of items as “food.” When the child is presented with an MTS task with a sample
stimulus (i.e., a puzzle), comparison stimuli (i.e., a car, a cookie, and a doll), and the
instruction to “put with same,” the child may solve this task using the following steps:
tact the sample (i.e., the puzzle) and say “toy” (overtly or covertly), the product of which
occasions the listener behavior of selecting the specific comparison stimulus also named,
“toy” (i.e., the doll). Thus, common naming verbally mediates a selection response when
the presence of one member of the class evokes a tact, the product of which (e.g.,
auditory stimulus) evokes the listener behavior of orienting to and selecting other
members that share the same name (Horne & Lowe, 1996). This process may explain
how an individual can categorize after only learning the common name of each stimulus.
There are numerous studies supporting the role of common naming in verbally
mediating categorization performance (e.g., Horne, Lowe, & Harris, 2007; Horne, Lowe
& Randle, 2004; Hughes, & Lowe, 2006; Mahoney, Miguel, Ahearn, & Bell, 2011;
Miguel & Kobari-Wright, in press; Miguel, Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, 2008; Sprinkle
& Miguel, 2012). Results from these studies demonstrated that participants who could
engage in naming (i.e., respond both as speaker and listener) correctly categorized
stimuli. Moreover, the absence of either speaker or listener behavior is correlated with
9
inaccurate performance.
Miguel et al. (2008), for example, examined whether typically developing
children could categorize pictures after being taught the relevant listener and speaker
behaviors separately. In experiment 1, four typically developing children (3 to 5 years
old) were taught to tact pictures of six United States maps as either “north” or “south.”
Then, participants were tested to determine whether they could categorize by selecting
the pictures belonging to the same group as the sample stimulus, or engage in listener
behavior by selecting the correct pictures when given the common names (i.e.,
categories). Two of the four participants categorized correctly, and had fewer errors
during the listener post-test, suggesting that listener behavior emerged as a result of tact
training. The other two participants passed the tests after receiving additional tact
training. In experiment 2, four typically developing children (3 to 4 years old) were
taught to select pictures when presented with a category name (i.e., listener behavior),
and were then tested to see if they could categorize and engage in speaker behavior by
tacting each stimulus when instructed to do so. Three of the four participants were able to
correctly categorize after being exposed to listener training. Of those three participants,
two were only able correctly categorize when they were required to tact the sample first.
Results suggested that the children were able to categorize when they behaved both as
speakers and listeners, and that teaching speaker and listener behavior separately may be
sufficient in producing novel categorizations with typically developing children. These
results have been recently replicated with children diagnosed with autism (Miguel &
Kobari-Wright, in press). Findings from these studies further support for the role of
10
verbal mediation in solving categorization tasks.
It follows that the types of names given to stimuli, as well as the kind of pictures
used, also seem to influence MTS performance. Randell and Remington (1999) taught a
group of typically developing adults to select comparisons whose names rhymed with the
names of the sample, while adults in the control group were taught to match stimuli
whose names did not rhyme. The experimenters found that the participants named the
experimental stimuli without receiving instruction to do so, and that participants in the
rhyme condition performed accurately in the matching task. The experimenters argued
that because the facilitative effects of rhyme necessarily depended on the naming of
stimuli, albeit covertly, the results observed could not have occurred in the absence of
naming. Moreover, the experimenters noted that training and testing often lead to the
production of intraverbally linked names. Specifically, when participants in the rhyme
condition repeated the names of the stimuli during the experiment, the salience of the
phonetic similarity between those names might have increased, facilitating class
formation. Similarly, exposure to pictures with rhyming names might provide grounds for
the common naming of the stimuli involved (e.g., cat, hat, rat, and bat all share the
common phonetic element “–at”). Similarly, Arntzen and Lian (2010) found that using
familiar pictures as nodes, rather than arbitrary stimuli, facilitated the emergence of novel
relations. The authors suggested that the familiar pictures were nameable, and therefore
could facilitate some mediating behavior. These results were replicated in a recent study
(Fields, Artnzen, Nartey, & Eilifsen, 2012).
Results from the aforementioned studies suggest that verbal behavior might play a
11
key role in matching performance and the development of categorizations. Although
naming may not be necessary to produce accurate responses in an MTS task, it is
certainly sufficient (e.g., Sprinkle & Miguel, 2012), and verbal individuals are likely to
utilize it as a problem solving skill.
Intraverbal Naming
Another type of naming that may mediate performance in an MTS task is
intraverbal naming (Horne & Lowe, 1996). Intraverbal naming involves the
establishment of intraverbal relations between specific names of stimuli acquired
incidentally as participants name the stimuli during visual-visual conditional
discrimination training (Carp, 2012; Horne & Lowe, 1996). Once these intraverbals are
established, they may serve to mediate subsequent performance. For example, when a
learner is taught to select a picture of a triangle in the presence of a star, and this behavior
is reinforced, the learner may intraverbally relate the stimuli by saying “star goes with
triangle.” In subsequent trials, the participant’s responses may be mediated when he or
she tacts the sample and says “star,” which would evoke the previously learned relation
“star goes with triangle,” and occasion the behavior of selecting the corresponding
stimulus (i.e., picture of a triangle).
A study by Lowe and Beasty (1987) provided evidence of intraverbal naming and
its facilitative role in the development of emergent relations which involved generating
untrained responses based on the training of a specific relation (Horne & Lowe, 1996).
The experimenters presented a visual-visual MTS task to 29 typically developing
children (ages 2-5 years). The experimenter taught participants to match a vertical line
12
sample to a green card comparison stimulus (A1B1 relation), and a horizontal line sample
to a red card comparison stimulus (A2B2). In the second phase, the experimenter taught
the children to match a vertical line sample to a triangle (A1C1), and a horizontal line
sample to a cross (A2C2). The experimenter then presented an equivalence test to
determine whether participants had formed derived relations by matching green to
triangle (B1C1), triangle to green (C1B1), matching red to cross (B2C2), and cross to red
(C2B2). The symmetry relation (BA, CA) was also evaluated. Results indicated that 17
out of the 29 subjects passed the equivalence test, and that participants who passed the
tests had intraverbally named the correct sample-comparison pairs. Moreover, recordings
of participants’ vocal behavior showed that participants labeled individual stimuli (e.g.,
“up” for the vertical line, “down” for the horizontal line, etc.) even though no instruction
was given to do so. Furthermore, some participants responded with “up green” when
presented with the vertical line stimulus, in which the correct comparison was the color
green. Similarly, when presented with the horizontal stimulus, they said “down red.”
The 12 participants who failed the novel relations test were subsequently taught to
name the sample-comparison pairs. For instance, on A1B1 trials, they were taught to say,
“up green.” After this training of intraverbal relations, all but one participant passed the
test. The 2-year-old participant who failed the test also failed the intraverbal naming
training. This suggests that intervention based upon intraverbal naming can be effective
determinants of outcomes of derived relations test (i.e., equivalence). One shortcoming of
this study is that participants’ verbal skills were not assessed prior to the study, and no
information regarding previous exposure to conditional discriminations tasks was
13
reported. Nevertheless, the spontaneous intraverbal vocalizations emitted by participants
support the notion that intraverbal naming facilitated performance in an MTS task as well
as in the formation of derived relations.
In a recent unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carp (2012) evaluated the role of
intraverbal naming as a possible mechanism for the formation of arbitrary categories or
equivalence classes. The experimenter taught seven children (ages 5-6) to emit vocal
tacts for pictures of states (i.e., Virginia, Alabama, California), birds (i.e., cardinal,
yellowhammer, and quail), and flowers (i.e., dogwood, camellia, and poppy). Afterwards,
the experimenter exposed participants to visual-visual MTS training where relations
between the pictures of states (A) and birds (B) or the AB relation, and states (A) and
flowers (C) or the AC relation were taught. For example, when presented with a picture
of Virginia (A1) the as the sample stimulus, selecting the picture of the bird cardinal (B1)
instead of the yellowhammer (B2) or quail (B3) was reinforced. In another trial, in the
presence again of Virginia (A1), selecting the picture of the flower dogwood (C1) instead
of camellia (C2) or poppy (C3) was reinforced. Subsequently, the experimenter gave
participants an equivalence test using an MTS procedure, which involved testing for
trained (AB and AC) and untrained relations (BA, CA, CB, and BC). Thereafter, the
experimenters gave an intraverbal test, which involved vocal-verbal conditional
discrimination with the corresponding vocal names of the visual stimuli. For example, the
experimenter asked “Virginia (A1) goes with which bird?” and a correct response was
saying “cardinal” the bird related to the state Virginia during visual-visual conditional
14
discrimination training. All the relations tested previously during the equivalence test
were also presented in the intraverbal test.
Two out of the six participants passed the equivalence test after receiving the
conditional discrimination training, while one participant passed after being exposed to
an additional MTS testing condition that required him to tact the sample stimulus before
making a selection response. Participants who failed the equivalence test passed after
direct training to select the corresponding stimulus in an MTS format (e.g., in the
presence of B2, selecting A2 was followed by reinforcement). Findings from this study
showed a correlation between performance on the equivalence test and the intraverbal
test. That is, participants who passed the equivalence test passed the subsequent
intraverbal test, and participants who failed the equivalence test also failed the intraverbal
test.
Horne and Lowe (1996) predicted that one way participants may pass an
equivalence test is because the training contingencies have allowed them to form the
intraverbal relations needed to mediate their performance (i.e., intraverbal naming).
Therefore, if they pass the equivalence test it may be because they have formed the
intraverbal relations during the MTS training. During MTS training, participants may
have formed intraverbal links when a specific response is reinforced. For example,
participants may have emitted the intraverbal “Alabama (A2) goes with yellowhammer
(B2)” when the selection of yellowhammer in the presence of Alabama was reinforced.
During testing, participants performance may be mediated as follows: when participants
are presented with the AB relation (the trained relation), participants tact the sample
15
stimulus (“Alabama”) either overtly or covertly, the product of which evokes the verbal
link
(i.e.,
“Alabama
goes
with
yellowhammer”),
hearing
themselves
say
“yellowhammer,” then evokes selecting the corresponding comparison stimulus. Since
intraverbal relations are bidirectional (Horne & Lowe, 1996), the same process occurs
during symmetry trials. During transitivity (BC, CB) trials, the participants engage in two
verbal links. The sequence are as follows: the participants tact the sample (e.g.,
yellowhammer), which evokes the verbal link (i.e., “yellowhammer goes with
Alabama”), which evokes the second verbal link (e.g., “Alabama goes with camellia”),
and in turn occasions selecting the picture of camellia. Another way in which responses
were verbally mediate is via common naming (see Carp, 2012 for details). Results also
showed that two participants passed the BA and CA (i.e., symmetry) relation during the
equivalence test, but failed the intraverbal test. That is, participants selected the correct
comparison (e.g., A2) in the presence of a sample (e.g., B2) during the MTS task even
though this reversed relation was not directly trained. However participants were unable
to respond vocally to the same relation (i.e., symmetry). For instance, when asked
“Cardinal goes with which state?” which is a BA relation, the participants did not state
the correct response (i.e., Virginia). Carp suggested that verbal mediation played a
significant role in transitivity (i.e., BC, CB), and may not always be necessary during
symmetry trials. Symmetry, according to Sidman (1994; 2000) is simply a natural
outcome of the operant reinforcement contingency, or may be due to the fact the stimuli
presented on symmetry trial (i.e., BA, CA) have already been paired during training (i.e.,
AB, AC). Although a correlation between the equivalence and intraverbal test was found,
16
this does not necessarily imply that intraverbal relations mediated performance on the
equivalence test. Another explanation, as mentioned by the researcher, is that the
formation of equivalence classes (e.g., A1B1C1) emerged simply from the reinforcement
contingencies (Sidman, 1994, 2000). Nevertheless, results from this study partially
support Horne and Lowe’s (1996) intraverbal naming account.
Purpose of the Study
One way to determine whether intraverbal naming mediates performance on a
conditional discrimination task is by directly teaching the intraverbal behavior and
assessing whether participants can perform an MTS task involving visual stimuli whose
names have been related intraverbally. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to
assess the exclusive role of intraverbal naming in the development of conditional
discrimination as measured using an MTS task. Six typically developing adults were
presented with visual-visual MTS task with arbitrary stimuli. Training consisted of tact
training with experimenter specified names, listener testing, and intraverbal training in
which the relations AB were rehearsed vocally using the verbal link “goes with.”
17
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Six undergraduate psychology students (ages 20-32) from California State
University, Sacramento (CSUS) were recruited, and received course credits for
participation. Participants were recruited based on their lack of prior exposure to
advanced classes and research in applied behavior analysis. The criterion for participating
included not speaking the Tagalog language (i.e., the language spoken in the Philippines)
as words from this language were used to name the arbitrary pictures. Prior to the study,
participants completed a survey on demographic information, which consisted of their
age, gender, grade point average and other languages spoken (see Table 1). Sessions for
participant 1 (P1) to participant 5 (P5) were conducted at the Verbal Behavior Laboratory
(VB Lab) on campus, which measured 7 m by 3 m and contained four tables, nine chairs,
three cabinets, and three computer stations. The participant and the experimenter sat sideby-side at a table, with a computer screen in front of the participant, while a research
assistant sat behind them for data collection. Sessions for P6 were conducted at a
different room, which measured 1.5 m by 1.2 m and contained two tables, two chairs, and
one desktop computer. Each participant completed three sessions, with no more than
three days between sessions, and no session lasting more than 2 hours.
18
Table 1
Demographic Information Across Six Participants
Participant
Gender
Age
GPA
Languages
P1
F
21
3.5
English, Russian
P2
F
22
2.7
English, Spanish
P3
F
20
3.8
English
P4
F
32
3.7
English
P5
M
23
2.9
English, Spanish
P6
M
25
2.5
Hmong, English
Materials
The stimuli consisted of three sets of arbitrary pictures (see Figure 2 ), with each
set containing six pictures coded A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, and B3, for the experimenter’s use
only. The letter assigned to each stimulus differentiated samples from comparisons, with
A stimuli as samples and B stimuli as comparisons. For training purposes, the terms
group A and group B were used to distinguish between the two groups of stimuli within a
set. The number indicates relations: A1-B1, A2-B2, and A3-B3. Each picture was 5.6 cm
by 6.9 cm in size.
For all conditions, except during intraverbal training, stimuli were presented using
Microsoft PowerPoint on a desktop computer with a 17” display. Stimuli were presented
against a white background, with trial slides separated by blank slides. The experimenter
controlled the presentation of the stimuli using a computer mouse, and participants made
19
a selection by touching one of the pictures with their index finger. A touch screen
computer was utilized for P6, where touching the image on the screen either presented
the comparisons (for the MTS) or a blank slide (for tact and listener training). Each
stimulus was given an individual Tagalog name. These names were selected because they
could be easily pronounced, and the words did not sound like any word spoken in the
English language (see Figure 2). Moreover, the researcher selected words with the same
level of difficulty (e.g., all words consisted of two phonemes).
1
A
B
Figure 1. Familiar pictures for pre-training
2
3
20
1
2
3
Isa
Kami
Buwan
Anim
Sila
Tala
1
2
3
Ulan
Hipon
Dilaw
Araw
Tupa
Itim
1
2
3
Manok
Tatlo
A
B
A
B
A
Bilog
B
Ibon
Apat
Haba
Figure 2. Arbitrary Stimuli for set 1 (top), set 2 (middle), and set 3 (bottom).
21
Dependent Measures and Experimental Design
The main dependent measure was the percentage of correct selections during the
MTS pre- and post-tests. In the presence of sample A1, the correct response was selecting
B1, in the presence of A2 selecting B2, and in the presence of A3 selecting B3.
Additional dependent measures included the percentage of accurate tacts (i.e., speaker
behavior), defined as saying the name of the stimulus when presented with a visual
sample on the computer screen (e.g., saying “Isa” when presented with A1). Another
dependent measure was the percentage of correct selections (i.e., listener behavior) when
given the dictated name. For instance, when presented with the auditory stimulus (e.g.,
“Anim”), a correct response was selecting the corresponding visual stimulus (e.g., A2)
from a 3-stimulus array. Another dependent measure was the percentage of correct
intraverbal responses, which consisted of emitting the related name when presented with
a fill-in-the-blank statement. Table 2 lists the intraverbal statements trained using the
verbal link “goes with.” For example, when the experimenter presented the fill-in-theblank statement “Isa (A1) goes with …” the vocal response “Anim (B1)” was considered
correct. The experimenters also assessed the number of 18-trial blocks to reach the
specified mastery criterion, and the percentage and accuracy of vocalizations emitted
during the MTS post-tests.
22
Table 2
Intraverbal Relations Trained Vocally Across Sets
Set 1
Set 2
Set 3
A1-B1 “Isa goes with Anim”
“Ulan goes with Araw”
“Manok goes with Ibon”
A2-B2 “Kami goes with Sila”
“Hipon goes with Tupa” “Tatlo goes with Apat”
A3-B3 “Buwan goes with Tala” “Dilaw goes with Itim”
“Bilog goes with Haba”
During all training and testing conditions, a research assistant recorded responses
on a data sheet provided (see Appendix A). During MTS and listener trials, the first
response was scored as either correct or incorrect. A response was defined as touching
the screen with the index finger. During tact and intraverbal trials, the first vocalization
was recorded. All sessions were videotaped and later coded by a second observer for
interobserver agreement (IOA) and treatment integrity purposes. Correct responses were
recorded as “+,” incorrect responses were recorded as “-,” and prompted responses were
recorded a.
A concurrent multiple probe design across three sets of stimuli (Horner & Baer,
1978) was used to determine the effects of intraverbal training on MTS performance, and
to evaluate the degree to which exposure to the training conditions affected responses on
subsequent stimuli sets. In the first session during which set 1 stimuli were trained and
tested, participants were also presented with MTS pre-test or probe blocks for sets 2 and
3. The purpose of presenting these probe blocks was to ensure that participants were
performing at baseline level on stimuli that had not been trained. The probe blocks were
23
interspersed between the training conditions of the target set (e.g., presented between tact
training and listener testing). After completing set 1, set 2 was then trained in the next
session, and probe blocks for set 3 were continually presented. P1 and P2 were exposed
to four probe blocks for set 2, and eight probe blocks for set 3. The remaining four
participants (i.e., P4-P6) were exposed to two probe blocks for set 2, and four for set 3.
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Integrity
A second observer independently recorded data from videotaped sessions for 33%
of all sessions per participant. For each trial, an agreement was scored if both the research
assistant and the second observer scored the trial as correct, incorrect, or prompted. Pointby-point agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the sum of
agreements and disagreements and then multiplied by 100. Table 3 lists each participant’s
average interobserver agreement (IOA) percentage, the range, as well as the percentage
of sessions in which IOA was collected.
The second observer assessed treatment integrity (TI) for 33% of all sessions per
participant. Data were taken on whether a trial was correctly or incorrectly implemented.
Correct implementation consisted of presenting the correct auditory samples during the
tact and intraverbal phase, as well as providing the appropriate consequence (e.g., praise
for correct responses and error correction for incorrect responses). An incorrect
implementation was scored if any of the trial components were not executed correctly.
Treatment integrity was calculated by dividing the number of correctly implemented
trials by the total number of trials conducted by the experimenter. Table 3 lists average TI
percentage, the range, as well as the percentage of sessions TI was collected.
24
Table 3
Agreement and Treatment Integrity Across Participants
Percentage
Participant
of
Sessions
P1
33%
IOA
Average
IOA
Range
100%
94-100%
Percentage
of
Sessions
33%
Treatment
Integrity
Range
96%
94-100%
P2
33%
98%
94-100%
33%
98%
94-100%
P3
33%
99%
94-100%
33%
98%
94-100%
P4
33%
98%
94-100%
33%
95%
89-100%
P5
33%
99%
94-100%
33%
99%
94-100%
P6
33%
98%
94-100%
33%
99%
94-100%
Experimental Conditions
Participants were exposed to the conditions as summarized in Table 4. To
familiarize them with the MTS procedure, participants were exposed to pre-training with
nonarbitrary pictures. Afterwards, they were exposed to tact training wherein the names
of all stimuli were taught, and were then given a listener test to determine whether they
could select the corresponding stimuli given their dictated names. Then, intraverbal
training was presented which consisted of teaching participants to link the names of the
stimuli vocally. To ensure that participants maintained accurate responding to the
previously trained tasks, a review phase was conducted where one block of each
condition (i.e., tact, listener, intraverbal) was presented, and reinforcement systematically
faded out. Subsequently, participants were exposed to the MTS post-test to determine
25
whether they could match the pictures based on intraverbal relations. Finally, participants
(except P1) were presented with the vocal post-test wherein participants were instructed
vocalize while performing the MTS task. All conditions consisted of 18-trial blocks,
except during pre-training, where a 9-trial block was used.
Table 4
Order of Experimental Phases
Phase
Passing Criteria
Mastery Criteria
1 Pre-training
1 block at 89%
-
2 Pre-test
1 block at 56%
3 Tact training
N/A
2 blocks at 94%
4 Listener test
2 blocks at 94%
-
6 Intraverbal training
N/A
2 blocks at 94%
7 Review
N/A
3 blocks at 94%
8 Post-test
2 blocks at 78%
N/A
9 Vocal Post-test
N/A
N/A
MTS Pre-training with Familiar Pictures
The experimenter gave participants instructions similar to the ones given during
the MTS test described below. MTS pre-training was conducted using six nonarbitrary
stimuli (i.e., 3 pairs) in order to familiarize participants with the MTS procedure. Pictures
of two animals, two vehicles and two food items (see Figure 1) were presented using 9trial blocks. Stimuli were counterbalanced so that each correct comparison stimulus
26
appeared three times, once on the left, once on the middle, and once on the right on the
screen. The correct response was touching the comparison related to the sample based on
a shared common name (e.g., vehicle), and no feedback was delivered for responses. The
criterion to proceed to the pre-test condition was a score of 89% (8 out of 9 trials) in one
9-trial block.
MTS Pre and Post-test
At the beginning of this phase, the experimenter read the following script to the
participant:
“In this phase, you will be matching arbitrary pictures. An image will
appear on the screen. I want you to touch the image with your index
finger, and when you do, three more images will appear. Touch the picture
that best goes with the first image. You have 5 s to respond. I will count
your first response as your answer. I won’t give you feedback on your
response. Can you repeat these instructions?”
A trial began when a sample stimulus appeared at the center area of the screen.
After the participants touched the picture as an observing response, three more pictures
appeared on the screen positioned horizontally below the sample stimulus. When the
participants touched one of the comparison stimuli, a blank slide was shown and the next
trial started. A correct response was scored when, in the presence of a sample (e.g., A1),
participants selected the related comparison (e.g., B1). An incorrect response was scored
when an unrelated comparison was selected (e.g., B2 or C2). If the participants did not
respond within 5 s, the experimenter provided the instruction, “please make a selection.”
27
Each sample was presented six times in a randomized order within each 18-trial block.
Two patterns of 18-trial blocks were used to prevent participants from repeated exposure
to the same presentation order. In the first pattern, correct comparison stimuli appeared
five times each on the left and middle of the comparison array, and eight times on the
right. In the second pattern, correct comparison stimuli appeared six times on the left,
middle, and right locations on the screen. Participants who failed the pre-test (i.e., 56%
and lower) advanced to tact training. P1 and P2 were given two pre-test blocks, while the
remaining four participants were exposed to one pre-test block. After the training
conditions, all participants were exposed to a minimum of two post-test blocks.
Additional data were taken on participants’ vocalizations while matching the pictures.
For instance, when participants tacted the sample, the experimenter noted a “+” in a
designated space on the data sheet (see Appendix A). If participants vocalized an
intraverbal (e.g., “Kami goes with Sila”), a “+” was noted in an area allotted for
intraverbal vocalization on the data sheet. If participants vocalized but emitted the
incorrect tact or intraverbal, a “-’’ was indicated in the corresponding area on the data
sheet. The data sheet was left blank when no vocalizations were observed. The passing
criterion consisted of a minimum of 78% (14 out of 18 trials) accuracy for two
consecutive blocks.
28
Vocal Post-test
At the beginning of this phase the experimenter stated the instruction “I want you
to vocalize the strategy that you are using to match the pictures.” One vocal post-test
block was given to participants after exposure MTS post-test. The purpose of this phase
was to require participants to engage in overt vocal behavior to determine how they were
matching the pictures. The participants were given the opportunity to control the mouse,
hence control the speed stimuli appeared on the screen. Data on vocalizations were
recorded the same manner stated previously.
Tact Training
At the beginning of this phase the experimenter read the following script:
“For this condition, I will teach you the names of each picture. When a
picture appears, touch the picture with you finger, I will say the name, and
I want you to repeat it. I will help you this time, but for the next block I
will give you chance to respond independently. You have 5 s to respond
before I help you. If you answer incorrectly, I will correct it. Can you
repeat these instructions?”
A trial began when a sample stimulus appeared on the screen. Only one picture
positioned in the center was shown at a time. Participants touched the picture with their
index finger as an observing response. An immediate vocal prompt was provided for the
first 18-trial block, then constant 5 s prompt delays were provided for all subsequent
blocks. Prompted responses during the first block were followed by praise (e.g., “nice
job”), while prompted responses during subsequent blocks were followed by neutral
29
feedback (e.g., “yes” or “uh-huh”). Correct responses prior to the prompt were followed
by praise, while incorrect responses were followed by error correction. The error
correction procedure consisted of the experimenter saying “No,” stating the correct
response, and re-presenting the trial. All six stimuli were presented in a predetermined
order using an 18-trial block, and each picture appeared three times within a block. The
mastery criterion was a minimum of 94% accuracy (i.e., 18 out of 19 trials) for two
consecutive blocks.
Listener Test
At the beginning of this phase the experimenter read the following script:
“For this condition, I will assess whether you can select the correct picture
when I say its name. Three pictures will appear on the screen, and I will
say a name. Touch the picture that goes with the name I just said. You
have 5 s to respond, and I will count your first selection as your answer. I
won’t give you any feedback if you answered correctly or not. Can you
repeat these instructions?
The experimenter waited for the participant to look at the screen as an observing
response, then the comparison stimuli positioned horizontally on the screen and the
auditory stimulus (e.g., “Anim”) were presented simultaneously. The correct response
was pointing to the picture that corresponded to the name heard, while an incorrect
response was pointing to a different picture. Participants were told to “make a selection”
when they did not respond within 5 s. No feedback was given for responses. All six
stimuli were presented three times each in a predetermined order in an 18-trial block. The
30
passing criterion was a score of 94% (i.e., 18 out of 19 trials) or higher for two
consecutive blocks.
Intraverbal Training
At the beginning of this phase the experimenter read the following script:
“I will be teaching you statements. For this block, I want you to repeat the
statement that I will say. Then, I will only say the first part of the
statement, and I want you to finish it. Later on, I will only say the first part
of the statement, and I want you to finish it as best as you can. You have 5
s to respond before I help you. If you respond incorrectly, I will correct it.
Can you repeat these instructions?”
The participant was taught to relate the names from group A with names from
group B using the statement “[A] goes with [B].” The intraverbal relations were as
follows: A1 goes with B1, A2 goes with B2, and A3 goes with B2 (see Table 2). Each
intraverbal relation was presented six times in a predetermined order. The first block
consisted of a) the experimenter emitting the intraverbal statement, b) the participant
repeating the statement heard, c) the experimenter stating a fill-in-the-blank statement,
and d) the participant finishing the fill-in-the blank statement by saying the corresponding
name.
During the first block, the experimenter emitted the intraverbal statement (e.g.,
“Isa goes with Anim”) and asked participants to repeat the statement. Correct repetitions
were followed by praise. Subsequently, the experimenter presented a fill-in-the-blank
statement (e.g., “Isa goes with ___”), and the participant was required to emit the
31
corresponding intraverbal (e.g., “Anim”). As the experimenter stated the fill-in-the blank,
an expectant look and hand gesture (i.e., raised eyebrow and one hand reaching towards
the participant with the palm facing up) were given to prompt participants to finish the
statement. In subsequent blocks, where participants were given the opportunity to
respond independently, only the fill-in-the blank was presented, and the participants were
given 5 s to respond. A correct response consisted of saying the correct name, and was
followed by praise. An incorrect response consisted of saying the wrong name or
mispronouncing one or two phonemes of the correct name (e.g., saying “Apot” for
“Apat”), and was followed by error correction. The error correction procedure consisted
of a) the experimenter saying the intraverbal statement (e.g., “Tatlo goes with Apat”) b)
the participant repeating the statement, and c) re-presenting the trial. If participants did
not respond within 5 s, the experimenter stated the corresponding name, and the trial was
repeated. The mastery criterion consisted of a minimum of 94% accuracy (17 out of 18
trials) for two consecutive blocks.
Review
The purpose of this phase was to ensure that participants maintained accurate
tact, listener, and intraverbal responses before being exposed to the MTS post-test. The
experimenter presented one 18-trial block per condition, and the order in which the
conditions were presented varied per participant. For example, one participant was
exposed to one block of a listener condition, followed by one block of an intraverbal
condition, and one block of a tact condition. Another participant was exposed to one
block of tact, listener, and intraverbal. The sequence of blocks presentations was never
32
tact, intraverbal, and listener to avoid incidentally training the sequence required for
intraverbal naming. Reinforcement was faded on the last 50% of each block. For
instance, if the first block presented tested for listener behavior, the first nine trials of the
18-trial block were reinforced, while the last nine trials were not. For the following
blocks (e.g., tact then intraverbal) the same reinforcement schedule was implemented.
Thinning the reinforcement schedule ensured that failure to perform accurately during
post-tests was not due to the absence of reinforcement. The criterion to move to the next
testing block was a score of 94% (17 out of 18 trials) or higher; scoring below resulted in
exposure to another block in the same condition.
33
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Pre-training with Familiar Pictures
All six participants scored 100% during pre-training with familiar pictures. They
matched pictures of animals, vehicles, and food items by engaging in the instructed
responses of touching the sample as an observing response, and touching one of the
comparison stimulus with their index finger to make a selection. Exposure to this phase
allowed participants to practice the MTS procedure before being presented with the
arbitrary stimuli. This controlled for the possibility that errors made during the MTS tests
were due to unfamiliarity with the task.
Arbitrary Pictures
P1
Figure 3 depicts data on percentage of correct matches (closed circles), tacts
(closed squares), listener responses (open squares), and intraverbal responses (closed
triangles) for P1 across three sets of stimuli. The first block (i.e., training block with
immediate prompt delay) for each of the training phases (i.e., tact and intraverbal
training) was not included in any of the graphs. During pre-test, P1 failed to match
arbitrary pictures for sets 1 (upper panel), 2 (middle panel), and 3 (lower panel) with
scores ranging from 0% to 28% (M = 19.5 for Set 1, M = 3.7% for Set 2, and M = 6.1%
for set 3). After tact training, P1 passed the listener test with 100% accuracy and scored at
100% during the review phase for all the conditions (i.e., tact, listener, and intraverbal)
34
across all sets. After exposure to the review phase, P1 passed the MTS post-test with
scores ranging from 89% to 100% (M = 97% for Set 1, M = 100% for set 2, and M =
94.5% for set 3). P1 did not emit any spontaneous vocalizations while performing the
MTS post-test. Anecdotally, the participant reported that she “remembered the verbal
exercise and said it in my head,” and that was how she solved the task.
Table 5 displays data on the number of trials required to reach the mastery
criterion during tact and intraverbal training for all participants. P1 required 90 trials to
master tact training, and 54 trials to master intraverbal training in Set 1, 54 trials for tact
and 36 trials for intraverbal in set 2, and 54 for tact and 36 for intraverbal in set 3.
Table 5
Number of Trials Required to Reach Mastery Criterion for Tact and Intraverbal Training
Across Sets
Set 1
Set 2
Set 3
Tact
Intraverbal
Tact
Intraverbal
Tact
Intraverbal
P1
90
54
54
36
54
36
P2
108
54
108
126
162
108
P3
90
72
126
36
72
36
P4
72
72
72
54
108
54
P5
72
54
90
72
108
36
P6
72
54
108
54
72
54
35
Figure 3. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and post-tests
for P1 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel), and set 3 (lower panel).
36
P2
Figure 4 depicts data on percentage of correct matches, tacts, listener responses,
and intraverbal responses for P2 across three sets of stimuli. During pre-tests, P2 failed to
match arbitrary pictures for sets 1, 2, and 3 with scores ranging from 0% to 33% (11.5%
for Set 1, M = 1% for Set 2 and M = 35.3% for Set 3). After tact training, P2 passed the
listener test with 94% to 100% correct selections, however, on the second block of set 3,
she scored at 89% correct listener responses. Although the criterion for passing the
listener test was 94% or higher, she was not presented with listener training as she scored
100% on the previous block. P2 maintained accurate responding during the review phase
with scores ranging between 89% and 100% for each condition (i.e., tact, listener, and
intraverbal). However, since she scored 83% on the tact review in set 1, she was
presented with an additional tact review block, in which she scored at 100% accuracy. P2
passed the posttests across all sets with scores ranging between 89% and 100% (M =
94.5% for Set 1, M = 100% for set 2, and M = 100% for set 3). Since she did not vocalize
during the first two post-test blocks, she was exposed to the vocal-post-test. The bars on
Figure 4 and subsequent figures represent percentage of trials in which vocalizations
were made.
During the vocal post-test, P2 stated intraverbals during 100% of trials (i.e., 18
out of 18) for sets 1, 2, and 3. On all trials, she vocalized the correct sample-comparison
relation (e.g., “Isa goes with Anim”). Moreover, during this condition, she correctly
matched the pictures with 100% accuracy across three sets of stimuli.
37
P2 required 108 trials to master tact training and 54 trials to master intraverbal
training in set 1, 108 trials for tact and 126 trials for intraverbal in set 2, and 162 for tact
and 108 for intraverbal in set 3 (see Table 5).
38
Figure 4. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and post-tests
for P2 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel), and set 3 (lower panel).
39
P3
Figure 5 depicts data on percentage of correct matches, tacts, listener responses,
and intraverbal responses for P3 across three sets of stimuli. During pre-tests, P3 failed to
match arbitrary pictures for sets 1, 2 and 3 with scores ranging from 11% to 33% (11%
for Set 1, M = 7.35% for Set 2 and M = 28.8% for Set 3). Following tact training, she
scored 100% in the listener test for all three sets, and scored between 94% and 100%
accuracy during the review phase for all conditions (i.e., tact, listener, intraverbal) across
all sets. P3 accurately matched arbitrary pictures for all trials across sets during post-tests
(M = 100% for Set 1, M = 100% for set 2, and M = 100% for set 3). Like P1 and P2, she
did not emit any vocalizations while performing the MTS post-test.
During the vocal post-test, P3 stated intraverbals during 100% of trials (i.e., 18
out of 18) for sets 1, 2, and 3. On all trials, she vocalized the correct sample-comparison
relation (e.g., “Ulan goes with Araw”). Moreover, she correctly matched the pictures with
100% accuracy across three sets. Anecdotally, P3 emitted other vocalizations in addition
to the intraverbal statements. For example, when the stimuli A2 and B2 from Set 2 were
shown she stated, “Tatlo goes with Apat and they both look like an open mouth.” When
the stimuli A3 and B3 from set 2 were shown she stated, “Dilaw (dee-lau) goes with Itim
(ee-team) and I remember D and E.” Moreover, when A3 and B3 from set 1 were shown
she stated, “Buwan goes with Tala and they look the most different.” Furthermore, she
reported, “Ibon and Manok both have a curvy line.”
40
P3 required 90 trials to master tact training and 72 trials to master intraverbal
training in Set 1, 126 trials for tact and 36 trials for intraverbal in set 2, and 72 for tact
and 36 for intraverbal in set 3 (see Table 5).
41
Figure 5. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and post-tests
for P3 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel), and set 3 (lower panel).
42
P4
Figure 6 depicts data on percentage of correct matches, tacts, listener responses,
and intraverbal responses for P4 across three sets of stimuli. During pre-tests, P4 failed to
match arbitrary pictures for sets 1, 2 and 3 with scores ranging from 33% to 39% (33%
for Set 1, M = 35% for Set 2 and M = 30.5% for Set 3). Following tact training, she
passed the listener test with 100% accuracy, and scored 94% to 100% accuracy during
the review phase for all conditions.
There was some variability with P4’s MTS post-test scores. She passed set 1 and
2 (M = 100% for set 1, and M = 97% for set 2), however, she failed the first post-test
block for set 3 with a score of 33%. Anecdotally, P4 reported while performing this
block, “I’m doing what I originally matched, which I know is wrong. I wasn’t doing this
on the other pictures. I know I should match them based on what you told me.” When
presented with a second post-test block, her score drastically increased to 94%.
Interestingly, during the second post-test block, P4 spontaneously emitted intraverbals on
56% of trials (i.e., 10 out of 18 trials), and she stated correct sample-comparison
intraverbals on every trial.
During vocal posttest, P4 stated intraverbals during 100% of trials (i.e., 18 out of
18) for sets 1, 2, and 3. On all trials, she vocalized the correct sample-comparison relation
(i.e., intraverbals). Additionally, her matching performance was at 100% for all three sets
of stimuli. P4’s vocalizations consisted of stating the intraverbal statement with the
verbal link “goes with” (e.g., “Ibon goes with Manok”), but on some trials she omitted
the word “goes.” Anecdotally, P4 was observed to be mouthing (i.e., moving her mouth
43
as if she was talking softly) while she matched the pictures on the first two post-test
blocks on some trials.
P4 required 72 trials to master tact training, and 72 trials to master intraverbal
training in Set 1, 90 trials for tact and 54 trials for intraverbal in set 2, and 108 for tact
and 54 for intraverbal in set 3 (see Table 5).
44
Figure 6. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and post-tests
for P4 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel), and set 3 (lower panel).
45
P5
Figure 9 depicts data on percentage of correct matches, tacts, listener responses,
and intraverbal responses for P5 across three sets of stimuli. During pre-tests, P2 failed to
match arbitrary pictures for sets 1, 2 and 3 with scores ranging from 11% to 18% (11%
for Set 1, M = 13% for Set 2 and M = 12.6% for Set 3). After tact training, he passed the
listener test with 94% to 100% accuracy, and scored at 94% to 100% accuracy during the
review phase for all the conditions (i.e., tact, listener, and intraverbal).
P5 matched the pictures accurately during post-tests across sets (M = 100% for
Set 1, M = 100% for set 2, and M = 100% for set 3). More importantly, P5 engaged in
spontaneous vocalizations as he matched the arbitrary pictures. In set 1, he emitted
intraverbal vocalization during 37% of trials with 100% accuracy (i.e., emitting correct
sample-comparison intraverbals) for the first post-test block; in the second post-test
block, he emitted intraverbal vocalizations during 33% of trials with 100% accuracy. In
set 2, P5 emitted intraverbal vocalizations on both post-test blocks during 100% of trials
with 100% accuracy. In set 3, he spontaneously vocalized during 44% of trials with 100%
accuracy in the first post-test block.
When presented with the vocal post-tests, P5 vocalized intraverbals during 100%
of trials for sets 1, 2, and 3. He emitted correct sample-comparison intraverbals, except
on one trial in set 3 wherein he made an error. The error consisted of mispronouncing a
name in the intraverbal (i.e., he said “dee-loan” instead of “dee-lau” for the name Dilaw).
Nevertheless, his matching performances during the vocal post-tests were at 100%
accuracy, even on set 3 despite this error. However, the error may not necessarily be
46
regarded as a true error since the word emitted resembled closely to the correct word. His
intraverbal vocalizations consisted of stating the statements taught during training (e.g.,
“Sila goes with Kami”). Anecdotally, he omitted the word “with” as a verbal link.
P5 required 72 trials to master tact training and 54 trials to master intraverbal
training in Set 1, 90 trials for tact and 72 trials for intraverbal in set 2, and 108 for tact
and 36 for intraverbal in set 3.
47
Figure 7. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and post-tests
for P5 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel), and set 3 (lower panel).
48
P6
Figure 8 depicts data on percentage of correct matches, tacts, listener responses,
and intraverbal responses for P6 across three sets of stimuli. During pre-tests, P6 failed to
match arbitrary pictures for sets 1, set 2, and set 3 with scores ranging from 0% to 39%
(0% for Set 1, M = 0% for Set 2 and M = 38% for Set 3). Following tact training, P6
passed the listener test with 94% to 100% accuracy. After intraverbal training, he scored
at 94% to 100% accuracy during the review phase for all conditions (i.e., tact, listener,
and intraverbal).
Matching performance for P6 during post-tests varied (M = 78% for set 1, M =
83.5 for set 2, and M = 83.5 for set 3). In set 1, P6 failed the first post-test block with a
score of 56%, but scored at 100% accuracy when given the second post-test block. In set
2, he matched the pictures with 89% and 78% accuracy. In set 3, he passed with a score
of 67%, and scored at 100% accuracy when presented with the second post-test block. P6
did not vocalize during the post-tests.
When exposed to vocal post-test, he engaged in intraverbal vocalizations during
100% of trials with 100% accuracy for sets 1 and 2. In set 3, however, he only vocalized
during 67% of trials but with 100% accuracy. Furthermore, he matched the pictures with
100% accuracy in set 1, set 2, and set 3.
P6 required 72 trials to master tact training and 54 trials to master intraverbal
training in Set 1, 108 trials for tact and 54 trials for intraverbal in set 2, and 72 for tact
and 54 for intraverbal in set 3.
49
Figure 8. Percentage of correct responses (closed circles) during MTS pre- and post-tests
for P6 across set 1 (upper panel), set 2 (middle panel), and set 3 (lower panel).
50
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
All six participants passed the MTS post-test after exposure to the training
conditions. Two participants required to be exposed to the second post-test block to meet
the passing criteria. These results suggest that tact and intraverbal training was effective
in teaching participants to match arbitrary pictures. Of the six participants, two (P4 and
P5) spontaneously vocalized the trained intraverbal statements in the post-tests. The
remaining participants were not observed to emit any vocalizations until the vocal posttest, where they were instructed to vocalize the strategy that they were using as they
matched the pictures. Of the five participants (P1 was not exposed to this condition) who
completed the vocal post-test, four emitted vocalizations on all trials. P6 vocalized during
12 out of 18 trials (i.e., 67%), but matched the pictures at 100% accuracy. All five
participants vocalized the intraverbal statements taught during training (i.e., [A] goes
with [B]). All but one participant (P5) stated the correct intraverbals in all trials during
the vocal posttest block. P5 made an error in one trial, mispronouncing one of the names
in the intraverbal (i.e., Dilaw). Despite this error, he correctly matched the sample to the
corresponding stimulus on this trial.
P5’s spontaneous vocalizations during all three sets suggest that intraverbal
naming mediated his matching responses. He emitted intraverbal statements even on
blocks wherein he was not instructed to vocalize. P4 did not engage in spontaneous
vocalizations until set 3. She failed the first post-test block (i.e., 33%) on set 3, during
51
which did not engage in any vocalizations. However, when presented with the second
post-test block, she vocalized during 56% of trials, and her matching performance
increased to a score of 94%. The fact that she only vocalized at 56% of trials, and yet
responded at a high accuracy suggest that either she did not use the strategy in some
trials, or she did so covertly.
The purpose of instructing participants to vocalize their strategy in vocal post-test
was to access behaviors that may have been occurring covertly. Hayes (1998) discussed a
measure he coined the silent dog method, which consists of three “controls” to determine
whether or not vocalizations are functionally equivalent to the person’s self-generated
rules or instructions. One of the controls states that vocalizations correspond with selfrules when performances are the same under a condition in which participants are not
required to talk-aloud, and in the condition wherein they are. Consider, for instance, an
individual who is covertly adding all numbers between 1 and 10. Asking that person to
say out loud what is being said privately will in all likelihood not alter performance. It is
possible, however, that concurrent vocalizations are functionally irrelevant and that the
two performances are similar because of it. This could happen if the vocalizations only
reported performance rather than were governed by it.
In the current study, participants performed similarly when no instruction to talk
out loud was given, and when they were instructed to do so. Results from the current
study passed the silent dog test, in that the absence of any behavior effect (i.e.,
performance is the same in post-tests and vocal post-test), suggests that the vocalizations
correspond to their covert behaviors. Another possibility, however, is that vocalizations
52
under the “talk-out-loud” condition (i.e., vocal post-test) were only under the control of
the researcher’s instructions, and did not reflect what participants were doing when these
instructions were not provided (i.e., post-tests). It is possible that participants were
matching the pictures based on learned intraverbal relations, but that over time they
started to match the pictures based on physical features in subsequent trials. During the
first few trials, participants may have tacted the sample and emitted intraverbals covertly.
However, after seeing which pictures were related, they may have based their subsequent
responses on physical features. For example, P4 stated that A2 and B2 from set 3 “both
look like an open mouth.” The pictures indeed contain an open triangle shape, which may
be visualized as an open mouth. Likewise, P3 anecdotally reported that A1 and B1 from
set 3 matched because “both have a curvy line.”
For the participants engaging in intraverbal behavior during the post-tests, it is
possible that intraverbal naming mediated their performance. Participants tacted the
sample upon seeing it, which evoked the corresponding intraverbal, the product of which
occasioned the listener behavior of selecting the corresponding stimulus (Horne & Lowe,
1996). For example, in the presence of the visual stimulus A1, participants tacted it and
said “Isa” (covertly or overtly), the product of which evoked the intraverbal “goes with
Anim.” Saying “Anim” occasioned the listener behavior of selecting the comparison
stimulus named Anim. Correct selection from the comparison stimuli after stating the
intraverbal is indicative of the presence of listener behavior. Upon hearing the last name
in the intraverbal (e.g., “Anim”), participants selected the corresponding comparison
stimuli. Failure to select the correct comparison stimuli would suggest that listener
53
behavior is not under stimulus control of the last name emitted. Accurate tacts and
intraverbal vocalizations, as well as correct selection responses, suggest that intraverbal
naming was the mechanism at work in participants’ performance on the MTS task.
An alternative explanation of participants’ performance involves joint control.
Lowenkron (1998) stated, “Joint control occurs when the currently rehearsed topography
of a verbal operant, as evoked by one stimulus, is simultaneously evoked by another
stimulus” (p.1). Mediation via joint control occurred if participants engaged in the
following responses: In the presence of the sample (e.g., Sila), the participants tacted it
and said “Sila,” which evoked rehearsing “Sila” as self-echoic. Since, the name Anim is
the next name in the intraverbal, the participants began to say “Anim” as a new selfechoic. Concurrently, the comparisons were scanned and tacted individually until the
comparison in which the tact matched the self-echoic was selected (i.e., “Sila”). Two
indicators that would suggest that joint control was the mechanism mediating
performance in the current study were occurrence of self-echoic behaviors, and tact
responses to each comparison stimulus. None of the data suggested that participants were
engaging in these behaviors; therefore, it is unlikely that joint control was the mechanism
controlling their matching responses. Nevertheless, future studies should attempt to
differentiate intraverbal naming from joint control as mechanisms controlling
performance on MTS tasks.
One of the initial goals of this study was to evaluate the effects of intraverbal
naming as a remediation strategy if participants failed the MTS post-test. This was not
assessed, however, since none of the participants failed the post-test. Remediation
54
training would have consisted of teaching participants to engage in the individual
components of intraverbal naming (i.e., tacting the sample, stating the intraverbal, and
engaging in listener behavior). Previous studies (e.g., Miguel et al., 2008; Miguel &
Kobari-Wright, in press) have found that requiring participants to tact the sample when
solving a problem (e.g., categorization) improved performance, as tacting the stimuli may
have served as a prompt or discriminative stimuli evoking other behaviors in the naming
sequence. If participants had still failed the MTS task, then the experimenter would have
prompted the participants to state the intraverbal related to the tact. If the participants had
still failed the post-test, they would have been trained directly to select the corresponding
picture (i.e., listener response) after having heard its dictated name. Implementation of
intraverbal naming as a remediation strategy would have served as additional support of
the facilitative role of verbal mediation in solving MTS tasks. Future research should
replicate this study with participants who are younger or lack verbal skills to readily pass
a matching task.
This research presents a preliminary investigation of how typically developing
adults could match arbitrary pictures when the intraverbal relations were taught vocally.
Findings indicate that participants successfully matched the pictures after being trained to
tact arbitrary pictures with unfamiliar names, and to emit intraverbal statements via
echoic training using the verbal link “goes with.” Moreover, this study evaluated whether
participants used verbal mediation to solve the MTS task. Spontaneous intraverbal
vocalization emitted during the post-test support the notion that verbal behavior mediated
participants’ responses.
55
Limitations and Future Research
There are a few limitations to the current study that are worth noting. First, only
one MTS relation was evaluated: participants were trained and tested on the AB relation.
Because of this, the implications of the current study are limited. Testing for the
formation of emergent relations (i.e., symmetry) and equivalence classes should be
investigated in future studies.
The second limitation of the study is that repeated exposures to set 3 MTS
relations during pretest probes might have produced a long history of systematic
selections, which may have interfered with participants’ performance on the post-test.
Participants may have created spurious conditional relations among stimuli that were
difficult to overcome during training. Hence, the long history of relating pictures during
probes seemed to have made responding more difficult. This was the case with P4 and
P6, who performed poorly on the first post-test block for set 3.
Furthermore, the physical similarity between stimulus pairs in set 3 was
predominant when compared to sets 1 and 2. According to the participants’ reports, A1
and B2 both have curvy lines; A2 and B2 contain a triangle shape; and A3 and B3 have
two shapes overlapping which each other. Anecdotally, participants whose scores were
slightly elevated during probe blocks in set 3, were matching A2 and B2 correctly.
Nonetheless, future investigations should control for the possibility that participants may
correctly select comparisons based on physical features.
Third, two patterns of 18-trial blocks were developed for the MTS pre and posttest to vary the sequence of trials participants were exposed to. One of the patterns was
56
counterbalanced such that the correct comparison stimuli appeared six times on the left,
middle, and right position of the screen in a randomized order. On the other pattern,
however, the correct comparison stimuli appeared five times on the left and middle
location, and eight times on the right. Similarly, during the listener test, the correct
comparison appeared six times on the left, five times on the middle, and seven times on
the right position. The unequal appearance of the correct stimuli on the three locations,
however, did not seem to affect performance during training or testing.
Fourth, data were not collected on the names participants consistently erred on.
Some names may have been harder to pronounce than others, and this could have
influenced the number of blocks to criterion during tact and intraverbal training.
Anecdotally, participants made more errors by mispronouncing the names Araw, Tatlo,
Buwan, Manok, and Bilog. Although researchers attempted to select Tagalog words that
were similar in difficulty, a more formal assessment of difficulty should be done in future
reiterations.
Fifth, the researcher presented participants with three 18-trial post-test blocks,
which meant that each relation (i.e., A1B1, A2B2, A3B3) were shown 18 times total.
Repeated practice to the MTS task may have established selection without mediation. As
mentioned previously, participants may have used intraverbal naming to match the
stimuli initially, but after seeing which stimuli were paired, responded via some form of
physical commonality. Future research should reduce the number of blocks to assess the
effects of training.
57
Finally, instructing participants to “vocalize their strategy” during posttest 3 may
have evoked stating the intraverbal even though this may have not served to mediate their
performance during previous MTS tests. Future researchers should replicate this study
and used an additional method to assess covert behaviors (e.g., response latency).
Clinical Implications
Discrimination and matching skills are components of many cognitive,
communication, social, academic, work, and self-care skills (Green, 2001). Functional
skills require learners to treat some environmental events as if they are the same,
including those that bear little or no physical resemblance. For instance, language
comprehension entails matching spoken words with corresponding objects, actions,
people, etc. Math skills involve matching printed numerals, quantities, spoken names, etc.
MTS procedures are commonly used to teach learner with autism conditional
discrimination. Green (2001) listed several recommendations on how to effectively teach
MTS procedures to individuals with developmental disabilities (e.g., requiring an
observing response, having three comparisons, etc.). Miguel and Petursdottir (2009)
strongly suggested that incorporating naming in training protocols is advantageous to the
learner. For example, it is important to ensure that individuals have an established
naming repertoire before being taught a task such categorization. A student, who cannot
tact a common name to stimuli, and select the stimuli when the common name is heard,
may have difficulty categorizing pictures given by the clinician. A student with naming,
however, can categorize by tacting stimuli with their common names and grouping
stimuli with the same names together. Furthermore, if the student with an established
58
naming repertoire does not independently engage in this response, the clinician could
prompt the learner to tact the picture, which could evoke tacting stimuli and behaving as
a listener.
In the current study the role of intraverbal naming was explored as a possible
mediational behavior to further assist individuals with autism to succeed in a MTS task
where the relation between stimuli do not bear any similarity with regards to their
physical features as well as their names. Findings from this research indicate that
teaching relations between stimuli via intraverbal training was an effective procedure in
matching arbitrary pictures that were never been paired visually. Moreover, results
suggest that participants were engaging in intraverbal naming as they matched the
pictures during the post-test.
The third goal of this research was to assess the effectiveness of intraverbal
naming as remediation strategy for individuals who failed to match the pictures correctly.
Unfortunately, this last goal was not achieved as none of the participants failed the task.
Evaluating intraverbal naming as a remediation strategy may benefit those learners who
continuously fail MTS tasks. There is much to be done to understand how intraverbal
naming may serve to mediate performance. Teaching individuals with developmental
disabilities to engage in problem-solving strategies or verbal mediation may accelerate
their acquisition rate and produce significant improvements in many skills.
59
Appendix A
MTS Pre- and Post-test (Pattern 1)
PD:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
SAMPLE
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
R +/-/P
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
Tact
Intra
Listener
60
Appendix B
MTS Pre and Post-test (Pattern 2)
PD:
SAMPLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
R +/-/P
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
B3
B2
B1
Tact
Intra
Listener
61
REFERENCES
Arntzen, E., & Lian, T. (2010). Trained and derived relations with pictures versus
abstract stimuli as nodes. The Psychological Record, 60, 659–678.
Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning, fourth edition. NY: Sloan.
Carp, C.L. (2012). Mediation by intraverbal naming in children’s equivalence test
performance (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and
Theses database.
Gutierrez, R. (2006). The role of rehearsal in joint control. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 22, 183–190.
Eikeseth, S., & Smith, T. (1992). The development of functional and equivalence classes
in high-functioning autistic children: The role of naming. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 123–133.
Fields, L., Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. & Eilifsen, C. (2012). Effects of a meaningful, a
discriminative, and a meaningless stimulus on equivalence class formation.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97, 163-181.
Goyos, C. (2000). Equivalence class formation via common reinforcers among preschool
children. The Psychological Record, 50, 629–654.
Green, G. (2001). Behavior Analytic Instruction for Learners with Autism: Advances in
Stimulus Control Technology. Focus on Autism and other Developmental
Disabilities, 16 (2) ̧ 72-85.
62
Hayes, S.C., White, D., & Bisset, R.T. (1998). Protocol Analysis and the “silent dog”
method of analyzing self-generated rules. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15,
57-63.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic
behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.
Horne, P. J., Lowe, C. F., & Randle, V. R. L. (2004). Naming and categorization in
young children: II. Listener behavior training. Journal of Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 81, 267-288.
Horne, P.J., Hughes, J.C. & Lowe, C.F. (2006). Naming and categorization in young
children: IV: Listener behavior training and transfer of function. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 247- 273.
Horne, P.J., Lowe, C.F. & Harris, F.D.A. (2007). Naming and categorization in young
children: V. Manual sign training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 87, 367-381.
Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the
multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189-196.
Kastak, C. R., Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (2001). Equivalence classification by
California sea lions using class-specific reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 76, 131–158.
Kissamore, A.N., Carr, J.E., LeBlanc, L.A. (2011). Training preschool children to use
visual imagining as a problem-solving strategy for complex categorization
tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 255-278.
63
Lowe, C. F., & Beasty, A. (1987). Language and the emergence of equivalence relations: A developmental study. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 40,
45-49.
Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., & Hughes, J. C. (2005). Naming and categorization in young
children: III. Vocal tact training and transfer of function. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83, 47-65.
Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., Harris, F. D. A., & Randle, V. R. L. (2002). Naming and
categorization in young children: Vocal tact training. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 78, 527–249.
Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., & Hughes, J. C. (2005). Naming and categorization in young
children: III. Vocal tact training and transfer of function. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83, 47–65
Lowenkron, B. (1998). Some logical functions of joint control. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 327–354.
Lowenkron, B. (2004). Meaning: A verbal behavior account. The Analysis of
Verbal Behavior, 20, 77–97.
Miguel, C.F., Petursdottir, A.I., Carr, J.E. & Michael, J. (2008). The role of naming in
stimulus categorization by preschool children. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 89, 383-405.
64
Miguel, C.F. & Petursdottir, A.I. (2009). Naming and frames of coordination. In
Rehfeldt, R.A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Hayes, S.C. (Eds), Derived Relational
Responding Applications for Learners with Autism and Other Developmental
Disablities (pp. 128-144). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.
Miguel, C.F., & Kobari-Wright, V. (2012). The effects of listener training on naming
and categorization by children with autism. Master’s thesis.
Michael, J., Palmer, D.C., Sundberg, M.L. (2011). The multiple control of verbal
behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 3-22.
Palmer, D. C. (1991). A behavioral interpretation of memory. In L. J. Hayes & P. N.
Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 261–279). Reno, NV: Context
Press.
Randell, T., & Remington, B. (1999). Equivalence relations between visual stimuli: The
functional role of naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71,
395–415.
Sautter, R.A., LeBlanc, L.A., Jay, A.A., Goldsmith, T.R., & Carr, J.E. (2011). The role of
problem solving in complex intraverbal repertoires. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 44, 227-244.
Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (1993). A California sea lion (Zalo-phus californianus)
is capable of forming equivalence relations. Psychological Record, 43, 823–839.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.
65
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston:
Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M., Cresson, O., & Willson-Morris, M. (1974). Acquisition of matching to
sample via mediated transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
22, 261– 273.
Sidman, M., Rauzin, R., Lazar, R., Cunningham, S., Tailby, W., & Carrigan, P. (1982). A
search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys,
baboons, and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 23–
44.
Sidman, M. & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An
expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
37, 5–22. Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Willson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes
generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21–42.
Sidman, M., Willson-Morris, M., & Kirk, B. (1986). Matching-to-sample procedures and
the development of equivalence relations: The role of naming. Analysis and
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 1–19.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley.
Skinner, B. F. (1968). A science and technology of teaching. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
66
Sprinkle, E.C., & Miguel, C.F. (2012). The effects of listener and speaker training on
emergent relations in children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
28,111-117.