THE EFFECTS OF CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION TRAINING ON THE
EMERGENCE OF MUSIC SKILLS
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
Amber Lynn Robinson
FALL
2013
© 2013
Amber Lynn Robinson
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
THE EFFECTS OF CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION TRAINING ON THE
EMERGENCE OF MUSIC SKILLS
A Thesis
by
Amber Lynn Robinson
Approved by:
_________________________________, Committee Chair
Caio F. Miguel, Ph.D
_________________________________, Second Reader
Megan Heinicke, Ph.D
_________________________________, Third Reader
Kim Roberts, Ph.D
___________________________
Date
iii
Student: Amber Lynn Robinson
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 EFFECTS OF CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION TRAINING ON THE
EMERGENCE OF MUSIC SKILLS
by
Amber Lynn Robinson
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of conditional discrimination
training on the emergence of music theory and piano skills. In Experiment 1, two
undergraduate students learned to identify three musical chord symbols, their respective
notations and pictures of the chords. Participants were also taught to play the piano in the
presence of a picture of the piano chord. In Experiment 2, six undergraduate students
learned to identify the same musical chords; however, the picture of the piano was
removed from the training set. Participants also learned to play chords on the piano
following the dictated name of the chord and to play the chords to a song on the
keyboard. Results of both experiments are consistent with past research in stimulus
equivalence and suggest that conditional discrimination training is effective in teaching
adults to read musical notation and play chords on the keyboard.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Caio F. Miguel, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my utmost gratitude to my advisor Dr.
Caio Miguel who taught me everything I know about the science of applied behavior
analysis. His passion and devotion to the field taught me to love what I do and to apply
that knowledge in my personal, professional and educational career.
I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Megan Heinicke
and Dr. Kim Roberts for the important suggestions and participation as members of my
committee. I would like to thank Dr. Becky Penrod for her support in my educational
career and inspiring me to pursue an applied path in the field of applied behavior
analysis. Additionally, I would like to thank the Verbal Behavior Special Interest Group
for awarding me with financial support to complete this thesis.
I am so grateful for Kelli Kent for all her hard work and involvement, and to
Kristin Griffith, Jonathan Fernand, and Charisse Lantaya for their assistance with data
collection, brainstorming, videotaping, and any other tasks needed for the successful
completion of this study. I would not have been able to complete it without them all.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for supporting me in every way possible
throughout my educational career. Without the sacrifices my mother made to ensure I
was educated and the knowledge and passion of the sciences I learned from my
stepfather, I would not be here today. Last but not least; I want to thank my sweet
husband Ramon, for always believing in me and supporting me through it all.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………..…………………………….. 1
2. EXPERIMENT 1 ...................................................................................................12
Method ............................................................................................................12
Procedures ....................................................................................................... 17
3. EXPERIMENT 1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................. 29
Questionnaire ...................................................................................................29
Pre-training ......................................................................................................29
P1 and P2 .........................................................................................................29
4. EXPERIMENT 2 .................................................................................................. 37
Method ........................................................................................................... 37
Procedures ........................................................................................................40
5. EXPERIMENT 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................. 43
Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 43
Pre-training ....................................................................................................43
P3 and P4 ........................................................................................................ 43
vii
P5 and P6 ........................................................................................................ 46
P7 and P8 ....................................................................................................... 48
5. GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 53
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 56
Future Research ...............................................................................................58
Appendix A. Matching to Sample Data Sheet ............................................................... 60
Appendix B.
Tact and Piano Playing Data Sheet ......................................................... 61
Appendix C. Participant Initial Questionnaire ............................................................... 62
Appendix D. Sequenced Generalization Stimulus BF .................................................... 63
Appendix E. Sequenced Generalization Stimulus DF ...............................................64
References ....................................................................................................................65
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
Table 1. Demographic Information across Participants in Experiment 1………..……...13
Table 2. Sequence of Training and Testing for Experiment 1...…………………………17
Table 3. Trials to Criterion Across Participants in Experiment 1……………………..…35
Table 4. Demographic Information across Participants in Experiment 2…….….………37
Table 5. Sequence of Training and Testing for Experiment 2...………………………... 40
Table 6. Trials to Criterion Across Participants in Experiment 2…………………..……51
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
Figure 1. Pre-training stimuli………………………....……………………...…….…….14
Figure 2. Experimental stimuli, instructions, and responses for experiment 1………..…14
Figure 3. P1 and P2’s performance across test conditions……….……………………....30
Figure 4. Experimental stimuli, instructions, and responses for experiment 2………..…38
Figure 5. P3 and P4’s performance across test conditions…….………...……………….43
Figure 6. P5 and P6’s performance across test conditions…….……………………..…. 46
Figure 7. P7 and P8’s performance across test conditions…….……………………..…. 48
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Several methods and teaching procedures have been utilized to teach music theory
and piano skills to learners of all ages and skill levels (Huang, 2009). Two of the most
common methods include the Suzuki and Alfred methods, which are both designed to
teach music theory and piano skills to beginning music students of all ages (Ziegler,
2011; Suzuki Association of the Americas, Inc., 2011).
The Suzuki method applies the basic principles of language acquisition to the
learning of music through imitation, memorization and repetition. For example, students
are first taught to become familiar with their instrument, and then are provided with an
auditory sample of the music and the musical notation that directly corresponds to the
music. Students are then required to listen to the auditory sample, and then begin to
imitate the sound on their specific instrument. Suzuki not only recommends playing the
recordings when the student is learning to play them, but also immersing the student in
the music outside of practice time (Suzuki, 1978). After many hours of repetition and
imitation of the music pieces, students are able to play their instrument; Suzuki states that
ability is developed though repeated practice (Herman, 1981). Although many music
students utilize the Suzuki method, research has not measured its effectiveness as a music
instruction technique in comparison to alternative methods.
2
Another commonly utilized music instruction method is Alfred’s Basic Piano
method (Palmer, Manus & Lethco, 1981). The method takes the key components of
learning to play the piano by breaking down each component of music theory and piano
skills into small steps. For example, students learning the piano are first taught to
understand how the piano works, how their body should be positioned and how their
hands and fingers should manipulate the piano correctly. Students then begin learning the
note symbols and basic rules about the notes. After these beginning steps, students are
taught to reference the piano and are provided with various prompts to correctly place
their fingers on the keys to produce a sound. Once a basic understanding of the
instrument and the notes is developed through repeated practice and memorization, the
student is gradually introduced to more complex skills. Upon the mastery of the basic
skills (e.g., note duration, note labels, placement of each note, etc.) the student is exposed
to novel combinations of these basic musical components to generalize and maintain the
previously learned skills. For example, when the student has mastered playing the notes
“A,” “B,” and “C,” with both hands, while following musical notation and placement in
one specific order (e.g., A-B-C) they are introduced to a task of playing the mastered
notes in novel combinations. There is no specific procedure for which skills to teach first
and what combinations of notes should be learned and in what order, it is just
recommended that students practice each step until mastery before moving on to the next.
It is through simple and complex rule following (e.g. when you see this note “A” on this
spot of the music you play the white piano key to the left of the third black key),
3
imitation, and repetition (i.e. practicing the skills until mastery and fluency is achieved);
that students are taught to play the piano and read complex musical notation (Palmer,
Manus, & Lethco, 1981).
Both the Suzuki and Alfred piano teaching methods emphasize consistent practice
of previously learned skills to ensure maintenance of the critical basic components of
music and promote the generalization of these skills as the learner is exposed to new,
complex skills. For example, students begin by playing one note at a time using one hand
in one location, then to use both the right and left hand at a time while playing one note
with each hand in the absence of specific musical notation. Students learn to play the
notes after repeated trials of playing one note in one location on the piano using both
hands. Next, students learn to play two, three, and four notes at a time at quicker speeds
and varying tones, introducing students to some beginning rhythm and music notation.
Once students learn to play the correct piano key with the correct fingers, they learn to
identify the same notes with the corresponding musical notation. This process is
continued until the student achieves mastery at a desired level. However, practice is
required to ensure maintenance and generalization of these skills (Ziegler, 2011; Suzuki
Association of the Americas, Inc., 2011). Despite the many different methods designed to
teach music skills, researchers in the field of music education have not clearly identified
the learning mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of utilizing one methodology over
the other, and whether or not each skill must be directly taught. Despite the lack of
research on piano methods, music educators have researched the effectiveness of positive
4
vocal feedback compared to negative vocal feedback on performance and skill
acquisition in an elementary school music program. Results of this research indicated
that students and observers preferred higher levels of positive vocal feedback than
negative feedback when teaching music to children and adults. However, positive
feedback is recommended to be delivered at higher rates when teaching younger students
compared to when teaching adults (Duke, 1986; Wilfe & Jellison, 1990; Speer 1994).
Arrau (1990) examined the vocal behavior of highly experienced piano teachers,
as well as the amount of time instructors spend delivering directions and feedback
compared to the time the student is engaged in playing the piano in a group instruction
setting. Results of the study indicated that experienced teachers deliver more positive
feedback and vocal instructions to younger students compared to older students and over
50% of instruction time consists of teacher directions and feedback, not student
performance (Arrau, 1990; Kosta, 1984). Although there are many methods utilized to
teach piano, no previous literature in music education has tested the effectiveness of one
over the other. We do however, already know the effectiveness of conditional
discrimination training and know it is effective in teaching typical learners and learners
with autism and other learning disabilities.
Research in the field of behavior analysis has identified a teaching methodology
based on stimulus equivalence, which may be effective in teaching piano skills and music
theory. Stimulus equivalence is a kind of stimulus generalization in which participants
learn to match stimuli with no similar physical properties and that have never been
5
related to each other directly (Sidman, 2009). For example, when asked to locate a cup
following the vocal instruction “cup”, a literate adult should be able to locate the actual
cup, a picture of a cup or the written word cup. The actual item, the picture of the item
and the textual stimulus are all members of the same equivalence class. In other words,
they are substitutable for each other even though they do not share any similar physical
properties (Sidman & Tailby, 1982).
For years, behavior analysts have been studying stimulus equivalence
experimentally via the matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure (Sidman, 1994). In a MTS
task a participant is presented with a sample stimulus (A1), after which correct selections
of a comparison (B1) in an array (e.g., B1, B2, and B3) is differentially reinforced. If the
participant is presented with the sample stimulus (A1) and their selection of the correct
comparison stimulus is reinforced (B1) and then presented with the sample B1 and
reinforced for the selection of C1 within an array of comparisons (C1, C2 and, and C3),
they learn that the samples and comparisons are substitutable for one another. This
substitutability can be measured by testing to see whether the participant would select the
correct A stimulus in the presence of B, the correct B in the presence of C (symmetry),
the correct C in the presence of A (transitivity) and the correct C in the presence of A
(equivalence; Sidman & Tailby, 1982; Sidman, 2000; Sidman, 2009).
Another outcome of stimulus equivalence is the transfer of function among
stimuli belonging to the same class. Research has shown that after training a simple
discriminative function to one member of an equivalence class, (e.g, A1) that same
6
function may transfer to other members of the class (e.g., B1 and C1) without further
training (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, & Luciano, 2004; Browne, Smeets, &
Roche, 1995; Dougher, Auguston, Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994; Greenway,
Lafayette, Dougher, & Wulfert, 1996; Hayes, Devany, Kohlenberg, Brownstein, &
Shelby, 1987; Miguel, Yang, Finn, & Ahearn, 2009). For example, a child who can
select toys in the presence of the auditory stimulus “toy,” may also be able to select them
in the presence of the printed word “toy” and long as the auditory and visual stimuli are
members of the same equivalence class.
Equivalence training has been used to teach a wide variety of different academic
skills, including reading, spelling, schedule following, geography and money skills in
both typically developing adults and children with developmental disabilities, including
autism (Annett & Leslie, 1995; Groskreutz, Karsina, Miguel, & Groskewutz, 2010;
LeBlanc, Miguel, Cummings, Goldsmith, & Carr, 2003; Miguel, Petursdottir, Carr, &
Michael, 2008; Miguel, Yang, Finn, & Ahearn, 2009).
Miguel, Yang, Finn and Ahearn (2009) studied the effects of conditional
discrimination training procedures, specifically MTS, on the substitutability of pictures,
their dictated names and corresponding printed words, as well as assessed for the transfer
of control from pictures to text. In their study, children with autism who had previously
been trained to follow picture activity schedules (Miguel, et. al., 2009) were trained to
select the printed word and picture corresponding to the activity following their dictated
names in an auditory-visual MTS task until mastery was achieved. Following training,
7
the transfer of function from pictures to text was tested by exposing the child to the
activity schedule with the printed words for each of the activities. Results showed that
participants followed the schedule in the presence of the printed words, indicating a
transfer of behavioral function from pictures to text. Furthermore, participants matched
the text of the activity to the picture and vice versa, suggesting comprehension of the
printed word (i.e., equivalence; Miguel, et al, 2009; Sidman, 1994).
There have been a few behavior analytic studies on applying stimulus equivalence
to music skills (e.g., Arntzen, Halstadtro, Bjerke, & Halstadtro, 2010; Perez & de Rose,
2010; and Hayes, Thompson & Hayes, 1989). Hayes, et al. used an auditory musical
stimulus (A) to train musical note duration (timing classes) using visual (picture of the
note-B) and textual (written word of duration of note-C) stimuli. Additionally,
experimenters taught participants to read musical notation by training a visual stimulus
(musical notation-D) to the location of the note on a piano (placement classes-E), which
finger is used to play the specific note (F), and to the letter of the note (G). Following
training, researchers tested for symmetry and equivalence relations for both timing and
placement classes. Test results indicated the emergence of all equivalence relations.
Participants were able to play a musical note using the correct timing and fingering, as
well as the correct pitch and fingering when presented with a vocal instruction or a visual
(depending on the group the participant was in). In the last phase of the study
participants were instructed to play a sequence of notes on a keyboard by combining
aspects of both sets of stimuli (either timing or placement stimuli) to create novel
8
combinations. Results indicated that participants required extensive practice before
playing the music on the piano with no more than five errors. Researchers showed that
participants knew all of the rules and could explain them but were in need of practice to
be able to follow them (Hayes, et. al., 1989).
In their second experiment, Hayes et al. (1989) followed the same procedures as
in experiment 1, however the stimuli for sets “C” and “G” (e.g., the specific timing or
placement name) were not used; instead researchers taught the rules for timing and
placement in the absence of the musical terminology. Following all training and testing
phases, participants displayed the emergence of symmetry and equivalence relations.
Results indicated that participants were able to play the keyboard and displayed a pattern
of decreasing number of practice trials. However, criterion for mastery in the placement
test (no name) required more trials overall than the timing test (no name). Results of this
study suggest that the use of a rule was effective in teaching participants to read musical
notation using both the correct timing and placement of their fingers on the piano keys, in
the absence of the music terminology. For example, participants were presented with a
visual stimulus of a specific note and taught the corresponding key to play on the
keyboard, but were not taught the technical musical notation names for the notes.
More recently, Perez and de Rose (2010) trained combinations of musical
notation (more than one note on the music staff) to an auditory musical stimulus by
playing a two-note sequence and training participants to select the correct musical
notation that matched the note played. Researchers then tested whether participants
9
displayed recombinative generalization of novel note sequences. Recombinative
generalization is defined as demonstrating novel arrangements of previously established
linguistic units (Suchowiersk, 2006). The participant was presented with a visual stimulus
consisting of three and four-note combinations made up of the previously mastered notes
trained in two-note sequences. Results indicated that recombinative generalization
emerged following the training procedures in five out of the six training phases.
Experimenters suggested that future research should teach (1) a larger number of notes in
the diatonic scale, (2) a greater number of additional combinations of musical notation,
(3) teach notes with varying intervals between the notes, as well as (4) utilize these
teaching procedures across a greater number of participants. Researchers also recommend
conducting a “naming” test, in which participants would produce the response (e.g.,
playing the notes on the piano) following training and testing phases (Perez & deRose,
2010).
Arntzen et al. (2010) used a matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure to train music
skills to an adolescent boy with autism. Researchers compared the differential
effectiveness of the many-to-one (MTO) and one-to-many (OTM) MTS training
procedures; specifically which method would result in the emergence of a higher number
of novel, untrained relations. In the MTO procedure two sample stimuli are trained in
relation to one comparison stimulus (e.g. A-B, C-B, D-B) In the OTM training structure,
a single sample stimulus is trained in relation to at least two comparison stimuli (e.g. AB, A-C, A-D) (Arntzen, et. al., 2010; Arntzen & Liam, 2010). The participant was
10
trained to identify four different sets of stimuli (e.g., major and minor musical chords).
For example, the participant was taught to select the musical notation for a target chord
following the dictated name of the chord, and to select a picture of the keys used to play
the chord, following the dictated name of the chord across two languages. Following
training, researchers tested for symmetry and equivalence relations. Results showed that
the participant learned the different classes of stimuli as major and minor chords (except
the last set in the MTO training). Although MTO and OTM procedures were both
effective in teaching music skills, OTM training structure was more effective as all
stimulus relations required less retraining and all sets were learned. These results are
consistent with earlier findings by Arntzen, which indicated that OTM training
procedures are more efficient than the MTO training structure (Arntzen & Holth, 1997,
2000a; Arntzen, Grondahl, Eilifsen, 2010).
Due to the limited amount of research on music education, specific evaluations of
teaching methodologies seems warranted. If music educators could teach the basic
components of reading music by directly training a few relations, which research has
shown may lead to the emergence of untrained relations, those basic skills could be
acquired much quicker than they would if each skill was taught individually. For
example, after teaching participants to play only three basic chords on the piano (i.e. Cmajor, G-major and F-major), they should have the basic skills to play over fifty songs on
the piano including “Amazing Grace”, “Jingle Bells”, and the basic 12-bar blues in C
major (Scott & Turner, 2007). Additionally, as previously mentioned, research has
11
demonstrated the effectiveness of conditional discrimination training on the acquisition of
language and music skills in young children and adolescents, including those diagnosed
with autism. Although music skills are not necessary for children and adolescents with
autism to function in their environments, it does provide them with independence in daily
life and leisure skills. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to extend the literature
of stimulus equivalence to the field of music education, utilizing different classes of
stimuli to train music theory and piano skills.
12
Chapter 2
EXPERIMENT 1
Method
Participants and Setting
Participants included two typically developing male adults, ages of 23 (P1) and 26
(P2) (see Table 1). They were recruited from undergraduate classes in the Department of
Psychology at California State University, Sacramento. Participants did not have any
knowledge of stimulus equivalence or music theory prior to participating in this study.
Participants were assessed by first completing a questionnaire to determine any possible
knowledge of music theory and basic terms. Experimenters asked participants a series of
ten questions in which the experimenter told them to identify pictures of specific notes on
a piano, chords on a music staff, basic definitions of musical terms, and multiple-choice
questions. Additionally, participants were exposed to the term “chord”, “scale”, “note”,
“major”, and “minor” (See Appendix C). Sessions were conducted in the Verbal
Behavior research laboratory on the university campus. The room measured 7m x 3m and
included one meeting table, nine chairs, three cabinets, a keyboard and three computer
stations. Sessions were conducted at least one time per week, with each session lasting no
more than one hour. Participants were provided the opportunity for a short break after
every testing condition. In this study, Mestre Libras, a computer-based program, was
utilized as well as two-dimensional printed stimuli (Elias & Goyos, 2010). Participants
13
were seated in front of either the keyboard or the computer screen for all training and
testing trials. Participants were controlled the mouse during testing conditions, and the
researcher controlled the mouse for all training conditions at the computer. The
experimenter was seated or standing next to (when seated at the piano) the participants to
avoid cueing. All sessions were videotaped for the purposed of interobserver agreement
(IOA) and treatment integrity (TI).
Table 1
Demographic Information Across Participants in Experiment 1
Age
Gender
Degree
Degree Area
GPA
P1
23
Male
A.A
Psychology
2.6
P2
26
Male
A.A
Psychology
3.4
Materials
Materials included a computer, mouse, desk, two chairs, any necessary stimuli presented
in a binder with sheet protectors, a video camera using an Apple iPhone, and a Casio LK165 keyboard. Stimulus materials in the pre-training consisted of three familiar pictures
(balloon, apple and elephant; Fig. 1) and their corresponding text.
For training and testing conditions on the computer, stimulus materials included
three of each of the following: a textual symbol for the target chord, a picture
representation of the chord on a piano, and musical notation of the chord. Both familiar
14
and unfamiliar stimuli were labeled (A1-F1, A2-F2, A3-F3) for the experimenter’s use
only.
BALLOON
APPLE
ELEPHANT
Figure 1. Pre-training stimuli. Familiar images used during Pre-Training.
The letters (A-F) referred to the stimuli, instructions and responses within the
classes and the numbers (1-3) to the stimulus classes themselves (See Figure 2).
A
B
1
“F major”
(Dictated Notation)
FM
2
“G major”
(Dictated Notation)
GM
3
“C major”
(Dictated Notation)
CM
“F major”
(vocal response)
Playing F major on
piano
“G major”
(vocal response)
Playing G major on
piano
“C major”
(vocal response)
Playing C major on
piano
C
D
E
F
Figure 2. Experimental stimuli, instructions, and responses for experiment 1.
15
Dependent Measures and Experimental Design
A two-tier non-concurrent multiple-baseline design across participants (Watson &
Workman, 1981) was used to determine the effects of conditional discrimination training
procedures on the acquisition of music theory and piano skills. Dependent measures
included the number/percentage of correct responses during training and testing phases.
During AB, AC, AD training and AB, AC, AD testing, a blue box appeared on the screen
followed by the delivery of an auditory stimulus (instruction) from the computer. During
BC, BD, CB, CD, DC, DB training and BC, BD, CB, CD, DC, DB testing, a blue box
appeared at the top left of the screen, with a sample visual stimulus appearing on the top
right side of the computer screen. During BE, CE, DE training and BE, CE, DE testing, a
blue box appeared in the center of the screen. When the sample stimulus or blank square
was selected with the cursor, one (BE, CE, DE only) or three comparison stimuli
appeared immediately below the sample stimulus. A correct response was scored when
the participant selected the correct comparison (i.e. C1) from an array of three (i.e., C1,
C2, C3) in the presence of a sample stimulus (i.e., B1). During BF, CF, DF training and
BF, CF, DF testing, the participant was placed in front of the keyboard and a sample
stimulus printed on an 8½” x 11” white computer paper was presented. The experimenter
said, “play what you see on the piano” and a correct response was scored when the
participant placed their fingers on the keys which corresponded to the sample stimulus.
16
Interobserver Agreement (IOA)
A second observer was present to collect IOA data during 100% of training and
testing sessions, a third researcher was in the room videotaping session. Treatment
Integrity (TI) data was collected from the videos of the recorded sessions. The
experimenter sat to the right of the participants and a second observer was standing
behind the participant recording the session. IOA was calculated using point-by-point
agreement ratio, in which the number of agreements for each trial was divided by the
total number of agreements and disagreements then multiplied by 100. The IOA across
tasks averaged 98.7% (89%-100%) for P1, 99.3% (89%- 100%) for P2.
Treatment Integrity (TI)
Treatment integrity (TI) was collected for 75% of the trial blocks across all
conditions. A trial was scored as “correct” when the experimenter delivered the correct
vocal instruction, reinforced correct responses during training trials, did not reinforce
incorrect responses, and provided the correct prompt at the correct prompt delay when
necessary. A trial was scored as “incorrect” when the experimenter delivered the vocal
prompt before or after the designated prompt delay for the trial block, failed to praise any
correct responses during training trials, provided praise during a testing trial, continued to
provide reinforcement for prompted or incorrect responses or failed to implement error
correction following an incorrect response. Treatment integrity was calculated by
dividing the number of correct trials by the total number of trials and then multiplying it
17
by 100. The TI across tasks averaged 97.1% (79%-100%) for P1, and 98.2% (89%100%) for P2.
Procedures
Participants were first given a questionnaire to determine whether or not they had
any knowledge of basic music theory, and any potential exposure to the definitions of
specific musical terms (See Appendix C). If potential participants scored any questions
correct on the questionnaire, they no longer continued in the experiment. If they scored
0% they would continue to the pre-training condition.
Table 2
Sequence of Training and Testing for Experiment 1
Phases
1. Questionnaire
1. Pre-training
2. Pre-test 1
3. Training 1
4. Post-test 1
5. Remedial
Training 1
6. Training 2
7. Transfer of
Function Test 1
Relations Tested
N/A
Trials
per
Block
N/A
N/A
9
(B-F), (D-F), (C-F),
(C-E), (B-E), (D-E),
(C-D), (D-C), (D-B),
(B-D), (C-B), (B-C),
(A-D), (A-C), (A-B)
(A-B), (A-C) (AB/A-C Mixed)
(B-E), (C-E) (B-C),
(C-B)
(A-B), (A-C)*
9
(C-F)
9
(B-F)
9
9
9
9
Criterion
N/A
Feedback
Provided
0%
1 block
at 89%
At or
below
chance
levels
0%
2 blocks
at 89%
1 block
at 89%
2 blocks
at 89%
2 blocks
at 89%
1 block
at 89%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
18
8. Remedial
Training 2
9. Training 3
(A-B), (A-C) *
9
(A-D)
9
10. Post-test 2
(D-E), (C-D), (D-B),
(D-C), (B-D)
(D-F)
9
11. Remedial
Training 3
(A-B), (A-C), (AD)**
11. Sequenced
Generalization
12. Debriefing
10. Transfer of
Function Test 2
2 blocks
at 89%
2 blocks
at 89%
1 block
at 89%
1 block
at 89%
100%
9
2 blocks
at 89%
100%
(B-F), (D-F)
9
2 blocks
at 89%
0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0%
9
100%
0%
0%
*Participants will only be exposed to this condition if they fail post-test 1.
**Participants will only be exposed to this condition if they fail post-test 2.
Pre-Training
The purpose of the pre-training condition was to familiarize participants with the
computer program, as well as the procedures to ensure that the instructions and
consequences being provided were sufficient in teaching and testing these repertoires
(Miguel, et. al, 2008). During this phase, participants were trained on an arbitrary
matching-to-sample task using familiar pictures (elephant, balloon and apple) and their
corresponding text (See Figure 1). Before pre-training began, the researcher read the
following script:
“Thank you for your participation, today you will be learning something new.
Remember, if you complete training, you will be rewarded with extra credit. A
blue box will appear on the top left of the screen, click on the blue box and a text
19
box will appear to the right of the blue box, click on the text and three pictures
will appear at the bottom of the screen. Click on the picture that best matches the
text and continue onto the next trial. Begin when you’re ready.”
Participants were then asked if they had any questions before they began. The sample
stimulus was displayed in the center of the computer screen (e.g., X1). Once the
participant clicked on the sample stimulus, three comparison stimuli appeared on the
screen (Z1, Z2, Z3). Correct responses were followed by praise (e.g., “good job” or
“that’s right”). Incorrect responses resulted in an error correction procedure (“no”,
followed by pointing to the correct selection followed by stating “this one” and pointing
until the participant touched the correct stimulus), followed by the next trial. Participants
were required to score a minimum of 89% out of one nine-trial block to be included in
the study.
Pre-test and Post-tests
The purpose of these conditions was to assess the familiarity with the relations to
be trained. It should be noted that AB/AC/AD relations were only pretested to ensure
participants could not already perform the relations to be trained. Sessions were all
presented in nine trial blocks, with each stimulus being presented once on the left, in the
middle, and on the right (See Appendix A and B). The order of presentation was
counterbalanced to prevent any possible order effects. Participants were required to score
at or below 67% on each relation pretested to continue with the experiment.
20
Relations tested for in post-test 1 included labeling the symbol for each target
chord (BE), labeling the picture of the target chord on the piano (CE), matching the
symbol of the target chord to the corresponding picture of the piano (BC), and matching
the music notation to the corresponding symbol of the chord (CB).
Relations that were tested for in post-test 2 included the following four relations:
labeling the notation of the target chord (DE), matching the symbol of the chord to the
notation of the chord (BD), matching the picture of the piano to the corresponding
notation of the target chord (CD), matching the notation of the chord to the corresponding
symbol of the chord (DB), and matching the notation of the chord to the corresponding
picture of the piano (DC).
Sessions lasted no more than 60-minutes or until all sets of stimuli were pretested/post-tested. If all relations were not tested at the 60-minute mark, session was
terminated during a training phase and resumed at the following session. No programmed
consequences were delivered for correct or incorrect responses to previously trained
stimuli during testing, and previously mastered stimuli were not interspersed. Failure
was set at 67% while criterion for emergence for the posttest condition was set at one 9trial block with a score of at least 89%. If any of the tested relations did not emerge
during post-test 1 and 2, participants were required to complete the remedial training
phase as described below. If all relations emerged across one 9-trial block at 89%,
participants skipped the remedial training and proceed to the next training phase (see
Table 2).
21
Playing the Piano: BF/DF/CF. The experimenter started the testing session by
sitting next to the participant and reading the following script:
“Thank you for your participation, today you will be learning something new.
Remember, if you complete training, you will be rewarded with a prize. We will
start at the piano and I will turn the page to a picture, when you see the picture
play what you see on the piano. Keep in mind; you will be tested you on the
relations we will be teaching you. I will not tell you whether you have played
correctly or incorrectly but just do your best.”
After the experimenter read the script, she asked participants “do you have any
questions”? If they responded with “no”, they were instructed to begin, if “yes”, the
researcher re-read the script and asked the participant to begin. Participants were
presented with the previously trained sets of stimuli on 8½” x 11” piece of white paper,
displayed in a binder; one stimulus was presented at a time (B-symbol of the chord, Cpicture of the piano & D-musical notation of the chord). The experimenter asked the
participant to play the specified chord on the keyboard (F) in the presence of each
stimulus. Stimuli (BF, CF, DF) were presented in 9-trial blocks and one teaching block
was conducted for each condition. No reinforcement was delivered for correct responses
during pre/post testing conditions. Criterion to continue to the next condition during posttests was set at 89% or higher on each relation that was tested. If they did not pass at
89% or higher, the experimenter exposed the participant to the remedial training
condition (see Table 2).
22
A sequenced generalization test was only conducted during post-tests. In this
condition, the experimenter tested the participants to determine if they would successfully
play a sequence of previously trained chords on the piano when presented with only the
symbol or the notation of the chord and the lyrics to a song. While seated directly in front
of the keyboard, participants were read the following script “I will turn the page to a
song. As you read the lyrics to the song, play the chord you see above on the piano. I
will not tell you whether you have played correctly or incorrectly but just do your best”
followed by the presentation of the chord sequence and the lyrics to “Amazing Grace”
(see Appendix D and E). Passing criterion was set at 89% or higher on each related that
was post-tested.
Tact/Textual Tests: BE/CE/DE. During these testing conditions, the
experimenter presented participants with either a printed symbol of the chord (B), a
picture a piano with the chord (C), or the musical notation of a chord (D) after being read
the following script:
“Now we are going to use the computer. When you see a blue box on the screen,
click on it. After you click on it, a picture will appear below the blue box and you
should vocally label the picture you see. After you label the picture, click on it
and the next trial will appear. I won’t tell you if you answer right or wrong, but
don’t worry because you will still earn your extra credit as long as you try. Good
luck!”
23
A correct response included the participant labeling the stimulus with the correct chord
name. For example, the participant states: “C major” following the presentation of the
symbol for the chord C-major. An incorrect score was recorded for any other vocal
response including “I don’t know”, or a single letter of the alphabet (e.g. “C”). No
reinforcement was provided nor were previously trained stimuli interspersed in this
testing condition. Participants were required to score at or below 67% on each relation
pretested to continue with the experiment. Passing criterion was set at 89% or higher on
each related that was post-tested.
Visual-Visual MTS CD/DC/DB/BD/CB/BC. During this testing condition,
participants were exposed to a series of visual-visual MTS using the stimuli outlined on
Table 2. Before beginning these tests, the experimenter read participants the following
script:
“You will be controlling the mouse for all the test conditions. Now, when you see
a blue box on the screen, click on it. After you click on it, a picture will appear to
the right of the blue box. Click on the picture and three pictures will appear
below. Click on the picture that corresponds to the picture on the right. Keep in
mind, we are testing you on the relations we will be teaching you later on. I won’t
tell you if you answer right or wrong, but don’t worry because you will still earn
your extra credit as long as you try. Good luck!”
A correct response included matching the corresponding picture to its correct counterpart.
For example, after selecting the blue box (observation response) a sample stimulus (D-
24
notation of the chord) appeared on the computer screen to the right of the blue box. After
the notation appeared, participants clicked on the sample stimulus, and three comparison
stimuli (B-symbol of the chord) appeared below. Participants scored a correct response
by selecting the symbol (B stimulus) corresponding to the sample stimulus (D stimulus)
of the target chord. An incorrect response was scored if the participant selected any other
stimulus other than the one corresponding to the sample. Participants were required to
score at or below 67% on each relation pretested to continue with the experiment. Passing
criterion was set at 89% or higher on each related that was post-tested.
Auditory-Visual MTS: AD/AC/AB. During this testing condition, a blue box
appeared on the screen and the experimenter instructed participants to click on the box
with the mouse. After clicking on the box, the computer delivered an auditory sample
(“C major”) after which three comparison stimuli appeared below the blue box.
Participants were required to select the stimulus, which corresponded with the auditory
sample from the array of three pictures. A correct response was scored when the
participant clicked on the corresponding stimulus to the auditory sample delivered (e.g.,
selecting the symbol /C M/ after hearing the instruction “C Major”. An incorrect
response was scored when participants selected a stimulus from the array of comparison
stimuli, which did not correspond with the auditory sample (e.g., selecting the symbol /C
M/ after hearing the instruction “G major”. Before beginning this testing condition,
participants were read the following script:
25
“When you see a blue box on the screen, click on it. After you click on it, the
computer will deliver an instruction. Next, click the space next to the blue box
(gesture) and three pictures will appear below. You should click on the picture
that corresponds to the instruction. I won’t tell you if you answer right or wrong,
but don’t worry because you will still earn your extra credit as long as you try.
Good luck!”
Participants were required to score at or below 67% on each relation pretested to continue
with the experiment. Passing criterion was set at 89% or higher on each related that was
post-tested.
Training
Auditory-Visual MTS. The purpose of this condition was to establish the visualvisual baseline relations (AB/AC/AD). Either a textual representation of the targeted
musical chord (B), a picture of a piano with the correct keys marked (C) or the musical
notation of the chord (D) appeared on the screen in a field of three following the dictated
chord name (A) (see table 1). A correct response included the participant selecting the
comparison stimulus that corresponded to the sample stimulus presented at the beginning
of the trial (i.e., the symbol /C M / is selected following the instruction “C major”). First,
experimenters trained participants to select the correct symbol that represents the target
chord (B) until mastery. Next, experimenters trained participants to select the correct
picture representation of the targeted chord following an instruction (C) until mastery
(89% across two consecutive 9-trial blocks) was achieved. Once both relations were
26
acquired trials of both the AB and AC relations were mixed by rotating the presentation
of a symbol and the picture of the piano every other trial (i.e., trial 1-AB, trial 2-AC, trial
3-AB, trial 4-AC, etc.). Mixed trials were conducted to ensure discrimination and
stimulus class formation. Participants were presented with as many 9-trial blocks as was
required to reach mastery criterion (89%).
A gestural prompt was used to cue participants to select the correct comparison
stimulus using a 5-second constant prompt delay (i.e., 0s, 5s; Touchette, 1971).
Participants began Training 1 at a 0-second prompt delay in which all trials were
prompted immediately to avoid the possibility or errors. The next block, experimenters
prompted participants using a 5-second delay, if the participant had not responded within
5-seconds of the delivery of the vocal instruction; the experimenter prompted the correct
response. Criteria to progress to the next prompt delay were two consecutive nine-trial
blocks with a score of at least eight out of nine correct responses (89%). Criterion to
move back to a 0-second prompt delay was two consecutive incorrect responses within
the nine-trial block, or two consecutive nine-trial blocks with a score of six out of nine
correct responses or less. Correct prompted responses were reinforced with praise,
whereas incorrect responses were immediately prompted followed by re-presenting the
trial. Experimenters delivered reinforcement contingent upon correct responding
following the prompt. Independent responses were differentially reinforced (Karsten &
Carr 2009) and were paired with immediate praise (“Wow, good job!”). When the
experimenter delivered prompts on a 0-second delay, they also provided participants with
27
immediate praise but at a lower level of intensity (e.g., “correct”, or “that’s right”).
Prompted and incorrect responses were not provided with a consequence after previously
being scored as independent and correct.
Piano Playing. The purpose of this condition was to teach participants to place
their fingers on the correct piano keys when provided with a vocal instruction to play a
specified musical chord (see Figure 2 for specific sets of stimuli used). In this training
condition, participants were presented with a picture of a piano with red circles on the
correct keys (C) and asked to play the chord on the keyboard (F). Training phases were
prompted using a hand-over-hand physical prompt to place their fingers on the correct
keys. Training phases were prompted using a 5-second constant prompt delay as
described in the previous training condition. Consequences for correct, incorrect and
prompted responses were identical to the previous training conditions. Criteria to
progress to the next prompt delay was two consecutive nine-trial blocks with a score of at
least eight out of nine correct responses (89%). Criterion to move back to a 0-second
prompt delay was two consecutive incorrect responses within the nine-trial block, or two
consecutive nine-trial blocks with a score of six out of nine correct responses or less.
Remedial Training. Participants were only exposed to the remedial training
condition if they failed the previous post-test in order to strengthen the baseline relations.
Participants were re-trained on identifying the symbol of the chord (AB), and identifying
the picture of the chord on the piano (AC), or identifying the notation of the chord
following the dictated name (AD) (See Table 2). Stimulus presentation and correction
28
procedures were identical to the training condition. Participants then repeated the
previous post-test in order to progress to the following training phase. Criterion to
progress to the next training condition from the post-test one condition was a score of
89% or higher across three consecutive teaching blocks.
29
Chapter 3
EXPERIMENT 1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Questionnaire
Both P1 and P2 scored 0% on the questionnaire provided and were eligible to
continue to the pre-training condition.
Pre-training
Both P1 and P2 scored 100% on pre-training conditions and were eligible to
continue onto the pre-testing conditions.
P1 and P2
Figure 3 shows percentage of correct responses across testing conditions for P1
(top panel) and P2 (bottom panel), while Table 3 shows the number of trials to criterion
across training conditions for all participants. P1 performed at or below mastery criterion
(67%) during all pretest conditions with the exception of identifying the symbol of the
chord and playing the chord in the presence of the picture of the piano (AB and CF;
100% and 100% respectively), all in 9-trial blocks. Participants scoring 100% on the AB
relation was expected because the textual symbol for each chord is made up of letters
from the alphabet (e.g., C major- CM, G major- GM, etc.). Therefore, when participants
were presented with the dictated name of the chord, they selected the correct comparison
(e.g. GM, CM, FM). Participants also scored 100% on the pre-test in which they were
30
presented with a picture of a keyboard with red dots identifying correct finger placement
and asked to play what they saw.
Figure 3. P1 and P2’s performance across test conditions. P1’s data is displayed
on the top panel while P2’s data is on the bottom panel.
Participant 1 achieved mastery criterion for the first training phase in which he
was taught to identify the symbol for the chord and the picture of the piano, following the
31
dictated name of the chord (AB/AC/ABAC Mixed Auditory-Visual MTS) after ten
blocks (90 trials; see Table 3). This participant passed post-test 1 in which he was tested
on matching the symbol of the chord to the picture of the piano (BC), matching the
picture of the chord to the symbol of the chord (CB), labeling the symbol of the chord
(BE) and labeling the picture of the piano (CE). He scored 100% across one 9-trial block
for each relation, suggesting stimulus class formation. P1 achieved mastery criterion for
playing the chord in the presence of the piano picture (CF Playing Training) after two 9trial blocks (18-trials; see Table 3). Following training, he learned to play the chord in the
presence of the symbol of the chord with no direct training (BF transfer test 1). He scored
100% across one 9-trial block for the BF transfer test. He was successfully trained to
identify the symbol of the target chord following the dictated name (AD Auditory-Visual
MTS Training 2), after three blocks (27 trials; see Table 3). During post-test 2, P1 labeled
the name of the chord in the presence of the musical notation of the chord (DE), matched
the symbol of the chord to the notation of the chord (BD), matched the picture of the
piano to the notation of the chord (CD), and matched the notation of the chord to the
picture of the piano and matched the picture of the chord to the symbol of the chord
(DB); scoring 100% across one 9-trial block for each relation. He then passed DF
Transfer Test 2, in which he was presented with the musical notation of the chord and
asked to play it on the piano. He scored 100% across one 9-trial block for each relation
(DF, and BF/DF sequenced transfer tests).
32
Similar to P1, P2 performed at or below passing criterion (67%) during all pretest
conditions with the exception of AB and CF (100% and 100% respectively), all in 9-trial
blocks.
P2 achieved mastery criterion for identifying the symbol of the chord and the
picture of the piano (AB/AC/ABAC mixed auditory-visual MTS training) after eight
training blocks (72 trials; see Table 3). Following training one, P2 labeled the symbol of
the chord (BE), labeled the picture of the piano (DE), matched the picture of the piano to
the symbol of the chord (CB) and matched the symbol of the chord to the picture of the
piano (BC). He scored 100% across one 9-trial block for each relation. Subsequently, he
played the correct chord on the piano in the presence of the picture of the piano (CF
playing training) after two 9-trial blocks (18-trials; see Table 3). He was then tested on
playing the chord on the piano when presented with the symbol of the chord (BF) and
passed the test with 100% across one 9-trial block. He then mastered the third training, in
which he was taught to identify the musical notation of the chords (AD Auditory-Visual
MTS 2) after three training blocks (27 trials; see Table 3).
During post-test 2, P2 labeled the name of the chord in the presence of the
musical notation of the chord (DE), matched the symbol of the chord to the notation of
the chord (BD), matched the picture of the piano to the notation of the chord (CD),
matched the notation of the chord to the picture of the piano; and matched the picture of
the chord to the symbol of the chord (DB). P2 scored 100% across one 9-trial block for
each relation. He then passed DF transfer test 2, in which he was presented with the
33
musical notation of the chord and asked to play the chord on the piano. Lastly, he scored
100% across one 9-trial block when presented with the lyrics to a song with either the
symbol or notation of the chord above the lyrics (BF and DF, sequenced transfer tests).
Experiment 1 was successful in teaching adult participants to identify three
musical chords, across three different stimuli. After learning the name of the chord (“C
major”, “F major”, “G major”), both participants learned to play three chords in the
presence of previously trained relations (symbol of the chord and the notation of the
chord) and learned to play the chords while reading the lyrics to a song.
Both P1 and P2 identified the symbol (AB) in the pretest conditions, which is due
to the simplicity of the symbol. The symbol for a C major chord is /CM/, for F major
/FM/ and G major /GM/, therefore when the computer delivered the dictated name of the
chord in the presence of the symbol (e.g., “C major” in the presence of /CM), all
participants and additional piloted participants passed this test with 100%. As is past
research passing the AB relation was not sufficient to lead to stimulus class formation
(Miguel, et. al., 2009).
In addition to identifying the symbol of the target chord (AB), P1 and P2 both
placed their fingers on the correct keys when presented with the picture of the piano (CF).
Even though, the picture of the piano and the keyboard being utilized appear the same
visually, being able to place the fingers in the correct keys does not mean that participants
could relate these placements to the specific chord names as verified during BF and CF
34
tests. These tests included playing the chord in the presence of the symbol of the chord,
or in the presence of the musical notation of the chord.
Although P1 and P2 scored below mastery levels (67%) when matching the
picture of the piano to the symbol of the chord (CD), matching the notation of the chord
to the picture of the piano (DC), and matching the picture of the piano to the symbol of
the chord (CB); a number of pilot participants scored very high on one or more of the
relations (data not included). This suggests that the order of the presentation of the initial
pretest may have potentially prompted participants to relate the stimuli to each other. Due
to the number of relations in the pretest condition (11), participants were exposed to a
combination of the three stimuli, which also may have prompted pilot participants to
relate the stimuli to one another. Although they were passing the visual-visual MTS
tests, this was also not sufficient for stimulus class formation as verified by failures in the
other MTS tests and transfer of function tests.
Results of Experiment 1 indicate that each participant learned to play musical
chords on a keyboard in the presence of novel arbitrary stimuli following auditory-visual
MTS training. Participants’ ability to perform visual-visual MTS pretests with no prior
musical experience can be explained based on the visual similarity in the stimuli used.
The picture of the piano with dots indicating correct finger placement fingers is visually
similar to the placement of each note in the chord on the musical staff (music notation
stimulus). In addition, the pictures of the piano with the finger placement for each chord
look visually similar to one another. The picture of the piano is has ten white keys and
35
seven black keys with three red dots placed on specific white keys. The picture of the
“C” chord has the red dots placed closer to the left side of the white keys, the “F” chord
has red dots moved to the right of the “C” chord, and the “G” chord is has the red dots
closest to the right side of the keys in the picture. Similarly, the placement of the musical
notation on the musical staff for the “C” chord are lower than the “F” and “G” chords.
Visually, the “F” chord looks like it is in the middle of the “C” and “G” chords, and the
“G” is looks higher than the other target chords. This picture of the piano may have
served as a prompt to the participant in relating the picture to the musical notation and
symbol of the chord because of the visual similarity between the picture of the piano and
the musical notation. The exposure to the picture across multiple pre-tests may explain
the higher scores of pilot participants who were unable to participate in the study. Thus,
researchers designed a second experiment to rule out the possibility that the picture of the
piano would serve as a prompt for correct responding during BD/DB/DC/CD tests.
Table 3
Trials to Criterion across Participants in Experiment 1
Trials to
Criteria
AB/AC/Mixed
AD
CF
Total
P1
P2
90
27
18
135
72
27
18
117
Debriefing
The experimenter interviewed participants at the completion of the study to
assess whether any specific strategies were utilized.
36
When asked the following question “What, if any, strategies did you use when
responding to the testing conditions?” P1 reported the following “I related the pictures of
the piano to the letters of the symbols by alphabetizing the letters in order based on which
dots were higher or lower on the keyboard” he also stated, “the picture of the piano was a
perfect guide to where I need to put my hands on the keyboard”. P2 stated, “I related the
pictures of the keyboard to the letters used as the names of the chords by alphabetizing
the symbol letters and selecting the chords that looked higher on the keyboard picture
than the others did”.
When asked, “Did you use any additional strategies in training?” P2 stated, “F
major was two keys off the end of the picture and G major was one key from the end,
then guessed C major was the other one”.
37
Chapter 4
EXPERIMENT 2
Method
Experiment 2 was designed to teach participants to play three musical chords
across auditory and visual stimuli without direct training. In Experiment 2, the picture of
the piano (C) was removed from the set of stimuli. It was predicted that by doing so,
participants would not relate the chords to the alphabet or create rules that would allow
relating the stimuli during pretests.
Participants and Setting
Six typically developing adults (P3-P8) between the ages of 18 and 30
participated in this study (See Table 4). Participants were recruited from undergraduate
classes in the Department of Psychology at California State University, Sacramento.
Recruitment strategies, location and setting description were the same as described in
Experiment 1.
Table 4
Demographic Information across Participants in Experiment 2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Age
23
21
27
23
24
26
Gender
Female Female Female Female Female Female
Degree
A.A
A.A
A.A
A.A
A.A
A.A
Degree Area Psych
Psych
Psych
Psych
Psych
Psych
GPA
3.1
3.1
2.8
3.4
3.2
2.6
38
Materials
The materials included were the same as described in Experiment 1 with the
exception of the removal of the “C” stimulus. This stimulus was removed to prevent
participants from passing the first pretest. Both familiar and unfamiliar stimuli were
labeled (A1, B1, D1, F1; A2, B2, D2, F2; A3, B3, D3, F3) for the experimenter’s use
only. The letters (A, B, D, E, F) referred to the stimuli, instructions and responses within
the classes and the numbers (1-3) to the classes themselves (See Figure 4).
A
B
1
“F major”
(Dictated Notation)
FM
2
“G major”
(Dictated Notation)
GM
3
“C major”
(Dictated Notation)
CM
“F major”
(vocal response)
Playing F major on
piano
“G major”
(vocal response)
Playing G major on
piano
“C major”
(vocal response)
Playing C major on
piano
D
E
F
Figure 4. Experimental stimuli, instructions, and responses for experiment 2.
Dependent Measures and Experimental Design
A two-tier non-concurrent multiple-baseline design across participants (Watson &
Workman, 1981) was used to determine the effects of conditional discrimination training
procedures on the acquisition of music theory and piano skills. Before beginning
training/testing with additional participants, the first participant in the dyad was required
39
to be completed with at least the first pretest 1 (all relations) to begin the next participants
training/testing.
Dependent measures included the number/percentage of correct responses during
training and testing phases and were identical to the previous experiment.
Interobserver Agreement (IOA)
A second observer was present to collect IOA data during 100% of training and
testing sessions, a third researcher was in the room videotaping session. A third observer
collected IOA data for four out of the six participants and from the videos of the recorded
sessions for the remaining two participants. The experimenter sat to the right of the
participants and a second observer was standing behind the participant recording the
session. IOA was calculated using point-by-point agreement ratio, in which the number
of agreements for each trial was divided by the total number of agreements and
disagreements then multiplied by 100. The IOA across tasks averaged 99.4% (89%100%) for P3, 99.3% (89%- 100%) for P4, 100% for P5 and P6, 96.1% (79%-100%) for
P7, and 100% for P8.
Treatment Integrity (TI)
Criterion for treatment integrity was the same as Experiment 1 and was calculated
by dividing the number of correct trials by the total number of trials and then multiplying
it by 100. The TI across tasks averaged 98.7% (89%-100%) for P3, 98.5% (89%-100%)
for P4, 98.5% (89%-100%) for P5, 100% for P6 and P7 and 96.9% (67%-100% for P8.
40
Procedures
As in Experiment 1, participants were given a questionnaire to determine whether
or not they had any knowledge of basic music theory (See Appendix C). If any of the
items were answered correctly on the questionnaire, they no longer continued in the
experiment. If they scored 0% they would continue to the pre-training condition.
Table 5
Sequence of Training and Testing for Experiment 2
Phases
1. Questionnaire
2. Pre-training
3. Pre-test 1
4. Training 1
5. Post-test 1
6. Remedial
Training 1
7. Training 2
8. Transfer of
Function Test
9. Remedial
Training 2
10. Sequenced
Generalization
Test
Stimuli
Per
Block
N/A
3
Trials
per
Block
N/A
9
(D-B), (B-D),
(B-E), (D-E),
(A-F), (B-F),
(D-F), (A-D),
(A-B)
(A-B), (A-D)
(A-B/A-D
Mixed)
(B-E), (D-E)
(B-D), (D-B)
(A-B/A-D
Mixed)*
(A-F)
3
9
3
9
2 blocks at
89%
100%
3
9
0%
3
9
1
9
(B-F), (D-F)
1
9
(A-F) **
3
9
(B-F), (D-F)
9
9
1 block at
89%
2 blocks at
89%
2 blocks at
89%
1 block at
89%
2 blocks at
89%
2 blocks at
89%
Relations
Tested
N/A
N/A
Training
and Testing
Criterion
N/A
1 block at
89%
At or below
chance
levels
Feedback
Provided
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
41
11. Debriefing
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0%
*Participants will only be exposed to this condition if they fail post-test 1.
Pre-Training. The purpose of the pre-training condition was to familiarize
participants with the computer program (i.e., Mestre Libras), as well as the procedures to
ensure that the instructions and consequences being provided were sufficient in teaching
and testing these repertoires. Training conditions were conducted the same way as
described in Experiment 1.
Pretest and Posttests. All training and testing conditions were identical to
experiment 1 with the removal of the picture of the piano (C). Also, CF training was
replaced with AF (playing the chord following the dictated name of the chord).
Piano Playing Training (AF). The purpose of this condition was to teach
participants to place their fingers on the correct piano keys when provided with the
dictated name of the chord (e.g., “C major”) a vocal instruction to play a specified
musical chord (see Figure 4 for specific sets of stimuli used). In this training condition,
participants were presented with the dictated name of the target chord (A) and asked to
play the chord on the keyboard (F). Training phases were prompted using a physical
prompt to place their fingers on the correct keys using the correct hand and fingering.
Training phases were prompted using a 5-second constant prompt delay as described in
Experiment 1 (0s, 5s, 5s, etc). Criteria to progress to the next prompt delay was two
consecutive nine-trial blocks with a score of at least eight out of nine correct responses
(89%). Criterion to move back to a 0-second prompt delay was two consecutive incorrect
42
responses within the nine-trial block, or two consecutive nine-trial blocks with a score of
six out of nine correct responses or less.
43
Chapter 5
EXPERIMENT 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Questionnaire
All participants (P3, P4, P5, P6, P7 & P8) scored 0% on the questionnaire
provided and were eligible to continue to the pre-training condition.
Pre-training
All participants scored 100% on pre-training conditions and were eligible to
continue onto the pre-testing conditions.
P3 and P4
Figure 5. P3 and P4’s performance across test conditions for experiment 2. P3’s
data is displayed on the top panel while P4’s data is on the bottom panel.
44
P3 performed at or below mastery level (67%) during all pretest conditions with
the exception of AB (selecting the symbol of the chord /CM/ after the dictated name of
the chord “C major”) in which she scored 100% across two tested blocks. Scores on all
pre-testing conditions are as follows: DB (matching the notation to the picture), 56%; BD
(matching the symbol to the notation), 44%; DE (labeling the notation), 0%; BE (labeling
the symbol), 0%; BF (playing the piano in the presence of the symbol), 0% and DF
(playing the piano in the presence of the notation), 0%. Both P3 and P4 scored 100% on
AB pretest, which was expected as mentioned in experiment 1 above. P3 achieved
mastery criterion for identification of the symbol and the musical notation of the chords
(AB/AD/ABAD mixed auditory-visual MTS) after ten blocks (90 trials; see Table 6).
Then she was able to select either the symbol of the chord or the musical notation of the
chord among three comparisons of either the musical notation of the chord or the symbol
of the chord. P3 was then tested on whether she could label the symbol of the chord and
its musical notation (BD/DB/DE/BE) in Post Test 1 (M =89% across one 9-trial block for
each relation). She achieved mastery criterion for AF Playing Training, in which the
experimenter vocally stated the name of the chord and the participant played the chord,
after six 9-trial blocks (54-trials; see Table 6). Next, she was presented with either the
symbol of the chord (BF), or the musical notation of the chord (DF) and asked to play the
chord correctly (100% across one 9-trial block). She was then able to play the chords to a
song in the presence of the lyrics to the song and either the symbol of the chord or the
45
musical notation of the chord above the lyrics in BF/DF sequenced transfer tests (100%
across one 9-trial block for each relation).
P4 performed at or below mastery level (67%) during all pretest conditions with
the exception of AB (selecting the symbol of the chord /CM/ after the dictated name of
the chord “C major”) in which she scored 100% across two tested blocks. Scores on all
pre-testing conditions are as follows: DB (matching the notation to the picture), 11% and
33%; BD (matching the symbol to the notation), 33% and 11%; DE (labeling the
notation), 0%; BE (labeling the symbol), 0%; BF (playing the piano in the presence of the
symbol), 0% and DF (playing the piano in the presence of the notation), 0%. She
achieved mastery criterion for identification of the symbol or the musical notation of the
chord (AB/AD/ABAD mixed auditory-visual MTS) after seven blocks (63 trials; see
Table 6). P3 was unable to label the musical notation of the stimuli (DE) during
BD/DB/DE/BE Post Test 1, scoring 0%. P4 labeled “F M, G M, C M” as the response
instead of “F major, C major, G major”. Following AB/AD mixed auditory-visual MTS
remedial training, she achieved mastery after four additional 9-trial blocks (36-trials; See
Table 6). Total trials to achieve mastery in training 1 (labeling the symbol or the musical
notation of the chord) are 11 blocks (99-trials; See Table 6). Following remedial training
1 P4 passed BD/DB/DE/BE posttest 1 as described above (100% across one 9-trial block
for each relation). Following BD/DB/DE/BE posttest 1, she learned to play the target
chords following the dictated name of the chord after three 9-trial blocks (27-trials; see
Table 6); however, was unable to play the chords in the presence of the symbol of the
46
chord (BF) with a score of 33% across one 9-trial block. Following four additional blocks
of AF remedial training 2 (total of 7 blocks; 63 trials), she was able to play the chords in
the presence of the symbol of the chord and the musical notation of the chord in the
BF/DF equivalence test (100% across one 9-trial block for each relation). P4 passed
BF/DF sequenced transfer tests as described above (100% across one 9-trial block for
each relation).
P5 and P6
Figure 6 shows percentage of correct responses across testing conditions for P5
(top panel) and P6 (bottom panel), while Table 6 shows the number of trials to criterion
across training conditions for all participants.
Figure 6. P5 and P6’s performance across test conditions. P5’s data is displayed
on the top panel while P6’s data is on the bottom panel.
47
P5 performed at or below mastery level (67%) during all pretest conditions with
the exception of AB, all in 9-trial blocks. Both P5 and P6 scored 100% on AB pretest,
identical to P3 and P4. Scores on all pre-testing conditions are as follows: DB (matching
the notation to the picture), 44%; BD (matching the symbol to the notation), 33%; DE
(labeling the notation), 0%; BE (labeling the symbol), 0%; BF (playing the piano in the
presence of the symbol), 0% and DF (playing the piano in the presence of the notation),
0%.P5 achieved mastery criterion for AB/AD/ABAD mixed auditory-visual MTS after
eight blocks (72 trials; see Table 6). Then she passed BD/DB/DE/BE posttest 1 (100%
across one 9-trial block for each relation) as described above. Following BD/DB/DE/BE
post-test 1, she was taught to play the chords following the dictated name of the chord
after four 9-trial blocks (36-trials; see Table 6). Next, she passed BF/DF equivalence test
1 (100% across one 9-trial block for each relation). She then passed BF/DF sequenced
transfer tests (M=89% across one 9-trial block for each relation).
P6 performed at or below mastery level (67%) during all pretest conditions with
the exception of AB and BE. P6 scored 100% on both AB and BE pretests. Scores on all
pre-testing conditions are as follows: DB (matching the notation to the picture), 22% and
0%; BD (matching the symbol to the notation), 0% and 0%; DE (labeling the notation),
100% and 100%; BE (labeling the symbol), 0% and 0%; BF (playing the piano in the
presence of the symbol), 0% and 0% and DF (playing the piano in the presence of the
notation), 0% and 0%. She achieved mastery criterion for AB/AD/ABAD mixed
auditory-visual MTS after seven blocks (63 trials; see Table 6). Next, she passed
48
BD/DB/DE/BE post-test 1 (100% across one 9-trial block for each relation) as described
above. Following post-test 1, P6 was taught to play the piano following the dictated name
of the chord, after three blocks (27-trials; see Table 6). Next, she was able to play the
chords in the presence of the symbol and the musical notation of the chord in BF/DF
equivalence test 1 (100% across one 9-trial block for each relation). She then passed
BF/DF sequenced transfer tests as described above (100% across one 9-trial block for
each relation).
P7 and P8
Figure 7 shows percentage of correct responses across testing conditions for P7
(top panel) and P8 (bottom panel), while Table 6 shows the number of trials to criterion
across training conditions for all participants.
Figure 7. P7 and P8’s performance across test conditions. P7’s data is displayed on the
top panel while P8’s data is on the bottom panel.
49
Following BD/DB/DE/BE post-test 1, she was able to play the chords following
the dictated name of the chord, after four blocks (36-trials; see Table 6). Next, she was
able to play the chords in the presence of the symbol and the notation of the target chord
in BF/DF equivalence test 1 (100% across one 9-trial block for each relation). She then
passed BF/DF sequenced transfer tests as described above (M=89% across one 9-trial
block for each relation).
P8 performed at or below mastery level (67%) during all pretest conditions with
the exception of AB and BE, all in 9-trial blocks. Scores on all pre-testing conditions are
as follows: DB (matching the notation to the picture), 33% and 0%; BD (matching the
symbol to the notation), 0% and 0%; DE (labeling the notation), 0% and 0%; BE
(labeling the symbol), 0% and 0%; BF (playing the piano in the presence of the symbol),
0% and DF (playing the piano in the presence of the notation), 0% and 0%. P8 achieved
mastery criterion for AB/AD/ABAD mixed auditory-visual MTS after seven blocks (63
trials; see Table 6).Then she passed BD/DB/DE/BE post-test 1 as described above (100%
across one 9-trial block for each relation). Following post-test 1, she was trained to play
the chords following the dictated name of the chord after three (27-trials; see Table 6).
Next, she was tested to determine if she could play the chords in the presence of the
symbol or the musical notation of the chord (BF/DF) equivalence test 1 (100% across one
9-trial block for each relation). She then passed BF/DF sequenced transfer tests as
described above (100% across one 9-trial block for each relation).
50
The purpose of Experiment 2 was to address some of the problems identified in
the first experiment. Specifically, the experimenters removed the picture of the piano (C)
from the set of stimuli in an effort to prevent participants from passing the pre-tests. The
relations passed in Experiment 1 included identifying the symbol of the target chords
following the dictated name of the chord (AB) and playing the chords on the keyboard
when presented with the picture of the piano with red dots indicating the placement of the
fingers. In Experiment 2, participants were still able to identify the symbol of the chord,
but the experimenter no longer provided participants with the picture of the piano in the
second training condition. Also, participants did not play the chords on the keyboard
correctly in any of the pretest conditions.
Additionally, by removing the picture of the piano (C), participants were only
exposed to two training conditions as opposed to three as in the first experiment. Total
number of relations trained in Experiment 1 included identification of the symbol of the
chord (AB) and the picture of the chord (AC), playing the chord on the keyboard in the
presence of the picture of the piano (CF), and identifying the musical notation for the
chord (AD). The relations trained in Experiment 2 included identification of the symbol
(AB) and musical notation of the chord (AD), and playing the chord following the
dictated name of the chord (AF). With the removal of the picture of the piano, testing and
training conditions decreased from 2, 1-1.5 hour sessions (up to 3 hours) in Experiment 1
to one training and testing session lasting no more than 1-1.5 hours (up to 1.5 hours) for
Experiment 2. The results of Experiment 2 yielded the same ultimate outcome in half the
51
time. For example, following training three relations, all participants were able to read the
musical notation and symbol for three major chords (C major, F major and G major).
Table 6
Trials to Criterion across Participants in Experiment 2
Trials to
Criteria
AB/AB/Mixed
AF
Total
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
90
54
144
99
63
162
72
36
108
63
27
90
54
27
81
81
54
135
Debriefing
When asked the following question “What, if any, strategies were utilized in
learning or playing the targeted chords”? P3 reported memorizing the relationship
between the chords based on a self-made rule. The researcher asked if she had made a
relationship with the chords and the alphabet and reported “no”. She also stated that she
referenced a symbol on the front of the keyboard to remember where to put her hands for
/F/ and /G/ chords.
P4 reported to have referenced the corner of a paper covering the screen on the
keyboard used in training to identify what keys to place her fingers and also reported
noting that the /F/ and /G/ chords are one key away from each other on the piano, similar
to on the picture of the notation, and that /C/ was the low one.
52
When experimenters asked P5 what strategies, if any, were used to remember the
chords or to answer correctly, she reported that she referenced a part of the piano where
her hands were placed and that each chord was in a different spot. She reported to use
these visual cues to remember where to place her fingers, and also reported that the /F/
and /G/ were confusing but /C/ was the low one on the keyboard.
P6 reported to have had previous music experience in elementary school (the age
of 10). P4 played beginning violin. This was taken into consideration prior to utilizing
her as a participant, however, she scored 0% on the questionnaire so was eligible to
continue. After the training and testing, P4 reported to have used visual cues on the piano
as well as simply memorizing where to place her hands for each chord following
prompting during the first training block at a zero-second delay.
53
Chapter 6
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Consistent with previous equivalence research, by training four relations
(Experiment 1) and three relations (Experiment 2), ten and six previously untrained
relations emerged, respectively (Sidman 2000). Participants in Experiment 1 were taught
to identify the symbol, a picture of the piano with the notes to make up the chord placed
on the picture, and the musical notation for three different chords. Additionally,
participants were trained to play the target chords in the presence of the picture of the
piano with the chord on the picture. As a result of the four trained relations, 11 untrained
relations emerged. Participants learned to select the symbol of the chord in the presence
of the picture of the chord (BC), to select the symbol of the chord in the presence of the
musical notation of the chord (BD), to select the picture of the chord in the presence of
the symbol of the chord (CB), select the musical notation of the chord in the presence of
the symbol of the chord (DB), and to select the musical notation in the presence of the
picture of the piano; without direct training. Additionally, participants were able to label
the symbols of the chords, the pictures of the chords and the musical notations of the
chords, and play the piano in the presence of the symbol of the chord, the picture of the
chord on the piano, and the musical notation of the chord.
Participants in Experiment 2 were trained to identify the symbol and musical
notations of the chords, as well as play the target chord following the dictated name of
54
the chord. After the three relations were trained to mastery, participants were able play
the target chords on the keyboard in the presence of the symbol of each chord and the
musical notation of the chords. Participants were also able to play the chords to
“Amazing Grace” while reading the musical notation and the symbol of the chords to
follow along with the lyrics to the song.
Results of the training conditions indicate the emergence of novel, untrained
relations among stimuli. By training participants to select the symbol and musical
notation for three novel musical chords following the dictated name of the chord,
participants labeled each stimulus without directly teaching this relation. Participants also
related the stimuli to each other when the relations were tested in a visual-visual MTS
test. The emergence of these untrained relations indicates that the symbol of a chord is
substitutable for the musical notation of that chord, and has the same meaning as the
name of the chord.
Participants in the current study learned to identify the symbol and musical
notation of three target chords. Following training, participants learned to play the chords
on the keyboard when the instructor stated the dictated name of each target chord. After
training, participants were able to conditionally relate the symbol and musical notation of
the chord to the keyboard. Therefore, the symbol and the musical notation evoked the
behavior of playing the keyboard and the function of the dictated name transferred to the
symbol and the musical notation of the chords.
55
The transfer of function from a symbol or musical notation of chords to the
keyboard was successfully established. Following training conditions, participants could
play musical chords on the piano in the presence of the symbol and musical notation of
the chord with no direct training (i.e., derived relations). This is important in both the
field of music education and applied behavior analysis as a successful method for
teaching adults to play basic musical chords on the piano with very little training. These
results are very important for the filed of music education because reading musical
notation is one of the basic steps to learning and understanding music, including singing,
playing an instrument, and composing music. Through equivalence training, participants
learned to read music more efficiently and effectively because not all relations required
direct training across various stimuli and response topographies. The current study
extends the previous music equivalence research by teaching participants to read musical
notation and symbols and to play music chords on the piano. Participants were also
successfully taught to play the chords on a piano with no direct training in reading music
while playing the piano using a OTM auditory-visual MTS training procedure (Arntzen,
2010). Individual notes and additional chords can be trained using the same teaching
procedures.
This study is one of the first in a series aimed at teaching participants to play the
piano in an efficient, structured manner. Results of this study suggest that teaching music
using a visual-visual MTS procedure effectively teaches adults to play the piano in up to
two hours. Therefore, procedures may be effective in teaching preschool children and
56
possibly children with developmental disabilities including autism to play the piano. By
directly training the participants to play the chords on the piano during experiment 2
rather than using the picture of the piano, researchers related the dictated name of the
chord to the placement of their fingers to each specific chord and resulted in less overall
trials to criterion than the procedures from Experiment 1.
Limitations
In both experiments, all participants passed the AB auditory-visual MTS training
with 100% success. This task required that participants to identify the symbol of the
target chord following the dictated name of the chord. Participants may have passed this
test as a result of knowing how to identify the letters of the alphabet. Although
participants could identify the symbol of the chord following the dictated name of the
chord, they were not able to play the chord on the piano in the presence of the symbol or
the dictated name. Additionally, participants were not able to label the stimulus as a
musical chord. When asked, they labeled the chord as “F M”, “G M”, or “C M” rather
than the correct response of “F-major”, “C-major”, or “G-major”. Therefore, passing the
AB relation (identifying the symbol of the chord) was not sufficient to establish stimulus
class formation.
Another limitation is that participants were only exposed to one block of visualvisual MTS tasks during pre-training (e.g., elephant, balloon, apple), but were not pretrained on auditory-visual MTS, or tact tasks. It is unknown if the absence of this training
phase impacted the results of the study, however, participants did ask questions regarding
57
the procedure for tact and identification tests. When exposed to these tasks during the
experiment, participants asked additional questions such as “where do I click the mouse”
or “what do I do after they say the word?” suggesting that participants may have
forgotten the instruction or not have heard the auditory stimulus that was delivered when
they were asking a question to the researcher. This may have impacted their performance
on tests that they were unsure how to complete. Pre-testing only, the visual-visual MTS
relation was not sufficient in training all forms of the required responses in the testing
conditions. Future studies should include pre-training conditions for all different forms
of pre-testing. For example, using familiar stimuli the experimenter should expose future
participants to auditory-visual MTS and tact pre-training in addition to visual-visual MTS
pre-training.
Lastly, P4 explained that she had taken a music class in elementary school but
scored 0% on her questionnaire. The results of her pre-test indicated she may have some
knowledge of musical terminology due to the words being used on the questionnaire
(e.g., chord, major, minor). The exposure to the terminology on the questionnaire may
have lead to her ability to label the symbol of the chord (B) on the pre-test. Additionally,
P1 labeled all symbols of chords in the pretests as minor chords (e.g., in the presence of
CM “C minor”). Although this is incorrect, the term “minor” is another form of a musical
chord (i.e. the opposite of a major chord). Although P4 was able to label the symbol of
the chords during the pre-test, she was still unable to play the chord correctly in the
58
presence of the symbol. This indicates that her ability to identify the symbol of the chord
was not sufficient to establish stimulus class formation.
Future Research
Future research should replicate these procedures with preschool aged children
and children diagnosed with autism to determine their effectiveness across a larger
population. Also, the pre-study questionnaire should be modified to include musical
terms and pictures only. Doing so may prevent participants from labeling the symbol of
the chord during the initial pretest as was exhibited by P4.
Additionally, future research should attempt to replicate the procedure of the
current study followed by teaching participants what each note is within the chord. For
example, a C major chord is a combination of the C/E/G notes all played simultaneously;
G major chord consists of the notes G/B/D and F major is made up of the notes F/A/C. If
the notes of each of these three chords are taught directly, after labeling them by the
chord name, participants will learn to identify all notes in the music alphabet individually
and as a chord unit. A similar strategy could be used to teach children to read by teaching
the individual letters and sounds then combining them to form the whole word rather than
teaching the whole word and having students identify the letters. De Rose, De Souza and
Hanna (1996) taught reading and spelling using exclusion and stimulus equivalence. The
results of their study suggest that control by a smaller textual unit may develop gradually
without directly training them as their repertoire of textual behavior controlled by whole
words increases. It may suggest that by teaching students to identify the chords and the
59
individual notes that make up the chord, a smaller unit (individual notes) may develop
gradually without directly training them.
Future studies should expand the teaching protocol described in the current study
as a way to develop a comprehensive teaching procedure for music theory and piano
skills. A complete training package should include directly teaching learners to identify
target chords, individual notes within each chord as described above, teaching basic
rhythm, and lastly, teaching participants to generalize across the entire piano. Future
studies should teach participants to play the melody of a target song using their right
hand, reading individual notes and to play the chords or harmony using their left hand.
Additionally, future research should compare the effectiveness of conditional
discrimination training compared to more establish methods, such as the Suzuki or Alfred
methods.
60
Appendix A
Matching to Sample Data Sheet
Date:
Participant ID#:
Session:
Primary /
Task:
Participant Block:
Reinforcement:
Error Correction:
Trial
Prompt
Level
IOA /
TI
Notes:
Sample
Left
Comp
Middle
Comp
Right
Comp
Response
(+/-)
Tx Integrity
sD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
N/A
F
G
C
N/A
C
F
G
N/A
G
C
F
N/A
F
G
C
N/A
C
F
G
N/A
G
C
F
N/A
F
G
C
N/A
C
F
G
N/A
G
C
F
% Correct (
P
SR+
/9)
61
Appendix B
Tact and Piano Playing Data Sheet
Date:
Participant ID#:
Session:
Primary /
Task:
Participant Block:
Reinforcement:
Error Correction:
Trial
Prompt
Level
IOA /
TI
Notes :
Sample
Response (+/-)
Tx Integrity
sD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
% Correct (
/9)
P
SR+
62
Appendix C
Participant Initial Questionnaire
1. What piano key is the circle placed on?
________________
2. What piano key is the circle placed on?
_________________
3. What piano key is the circle placed on?
_________________
4. What is a chord?
________________________________________________________
5. What is a scale?
________________________________________________________
6. What is this?
_________________
7. What do Major and Minor mean?
________________________________________________________
8. How many notes are in a chord?
________________________________________________________
9. What notes are these?
_____
____
____ ______
10. Circle the letter for one that is the best match to the symbol:
D M:
a.
b.
c.
d. All of the above
63
Appendix D
Sequenced Generalization Stimulus BF
Amazing Grace
CM
FM
CM
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
GM
That saved a wretch like me.
CM
FM
CM
I once was lost, but now I’m found,
GM
CM
Was blind, but now I see.
64
Appendix E
Sequenced Generalization Stimulus DF
Amazing Grace
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
CM
FM
CM
I once was lost, but now I’m found,
GM
CM
Was blind, but now I see.
65
References
Annett, J. M., Leslie, J. C. (1995). Stimulus equivalence classes involving olfactory
stimuli. The Psychological Record, 45, 439-450.
Arrau, C. O. (1990). Classroom behavior of exemplary group piano teachers in American
colleges and universities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 3661A.
Arntzen, E., Halstadtro, L., Bjerke, E., & Halstadtro, M. (2010). Training and testing
music skills in a boy with autism using a matching-to-sample format. Behavioral
Interventions, 25, 129-143.
Arntzen, E., Lian, T. (2010). Trained and derived relations with pictures versus abstract
stimuli as nodes. The Psychological Record, 60, 659-677.
Barnes, D., Browne, M., Smeets, P., Roche, B. (1995). A transfer of functions and a
conditional transfer of functions through equivalence relations in three-to sixyear-old children. The Psychological Record, 45, 405-430.
Barnes-Holmes, Y., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Luciano, C. (2004). A derived
transer of functions through equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 54,
95-113.
de Rose, J. C., de Souza D. G., & Hanna, E. S. (1996). Teaching reading and spelling:
Exclusion and stimulus equivalence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29,
451-469.
66
De Leon, I. G., Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation
format for assessing reinforcer preferences. The Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 29, 519-533.
Dougher, M. J., Auguston, E., Markham, M. R., Grenway, D., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The
transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction through equivalence classes.
Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331-351.
Duke, R. A. (1986). Giving approval for appropriate behavior. Contributions to Music
Education, 13, 23-30.
Goyos, C., Elias, N. C., & Ribeiro, D. M. (2005). Desenvolvimento de um programa
informatizado para ensino de LIBRAS. In: II Congresso Brasileiro de Educação
Especial, São Carlos. II Congresso Brasileiro de Educação Especial, v. 1, p. 363.
Greenway, D. E., Dougher, M. J., Wulfert, E. (1996). Transfer of consequential functions
via stimulus equivalence: Generalization to different testing contexts
Groskreutz, N. C., Karsina, A., Miguel, C. F., Groskewutz, M. P. (2010). Using complex
auditory-visual samples to produce emergent relatios in children with autism.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,43, 131-136.
Hayes, L. J., Thompson, S., & Hayes, S. C. (1989). Stimulus equivalence and rule
following. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 275-291.
Huang, F. T. (2009). Preschool piano methods and developmentally appropriate
practices. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social
Sciences, 70,1211.
67
Kosta, M. J. (1984). An investigation of reinforcements, time use, and student
attentiveness in piano lessons. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 113122.
LeBlanc, L. A., Miguel, C. F., Cummings, A. R., Goldsmith, T. R., & Carr, J. E. (2003).
The effects of three stimulus equivalence testing conditions on emergent US
geography relations of children diagnosed with autism. Behavioral Interventions,
18, 279-289.
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
Analalysis of Behavior, 89, 383-405.
Miguel, C. F., Yang, H. G., Finn, H. E., & Ahearn, W. H. (2009). Established derived
textual control in activity schedules with children with autism. The Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 703-709.
Minster, S. T., Jones, M., Elliffe, D., & Muthukumaraswamy, S. D. (2006). Stimulus
equivalence: Testing sidman’s (2000) theory. Journal of the Experimental
Analalysis of Behavior, 85, 371-391.
Palmer, W. A., Manus, M., & Lethco, A. V. Alfred’s Basic Piano Library. Alfred
Publishing Company.
Perez, W. F., & de Rose, Julio, C. (2010). Recombinative generalization: An exploratory
study in musical reading. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 29, 451-469.
68
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127-146.
Sidman, M. (2009). Equivalence relations and behavior: An introductory tutorial. The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 74, 127-146.
Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Wilson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes
generated by conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21-42.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An
expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analalysis of
Behavior, 37, 5-22.
Speer, D. R. (1994). An analysis of sequential patterns of instruction in piano lessons.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 14-26.
Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., & Remington. (1996). Naming, the formation of stimulus
classes and applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29,
409-431.
Suchowierska, M. (2006). Recombinative generalization: Some theoretical and practical
remarks. International Journal of Psychology,41, 514-522.
Suzuki, S. (1978). Suzuki Piano School. Miami, Florida: Summy-Birchard Inc.
Suzuki Association of the Americas, Inc. (2011). What is the suzuki method? Retrieved
from http://suzukiassociation.org.
69
Touchette, B. (1971). Transfer of stimulus control: Measuring the moment of transfer.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15,347-364.
Vause, T., Martin, G. L., Yu, C. T., Marion, C., & Sakko, G. (2005). Teaching
equivalence relations to individuals with minimal verbal repertoires: Are visual and
auditory-visual discriminations predictive of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological
Record, 55, 197-218.
Watson, P. J., & Workman, E. A. (1981). The nonconcurrent multiple baseline across
individuals design: An extension of the traditional multiple baseline design.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 12, 257–259.
Wolfe, D. E., & Jellison, J.A. (1990). Music and elementary education students’
evaluations of music-teaching scripts. Journal of Research in Music Education,
38, 311-321.
Ziegler, J. M. (2011). Piano teaching methods. Retrieved from http://pianoeducation.org.