Abstract
Abstract This study investigated the effects of pseudoword discrimination training that either required or didn’t require selection responses upon control by stimulus elements and recombination of elements, and upon stimulus observation. Eight undergraduate students were exposed to two conditions with discriminative training and stimulus control test. Condition SEL required selecting the S+, and condition OBS only required observation. Test results suggest that selection responses did not affect control by the elements or the recombination of elements in the pseudowords. Four participants presented restricted stimulus control. This control was extended in the additional DOR condition, which required differential observation of the elements, and was accompanied by increases in S+ observation. Increased stimulus control, promoted by the DOR, should still be evaluated independently of previous teaching conditions.
Highlights
This study investigated the effects of pseudoword discrimination training that either required or didn’t require selection responses upon control by stimulus elements and recombination of elements, and upon stimulus observation
In the discriminative training phase of the SEL condition, all participants scored at least 94.4%, which corresponds to 34 correct responses in 36 trials
This study analyzed the effect of the selection response requirement during discriminative training on the extent of behavioral control established by the elements and recombination of taught stimuli, as well as on the observation of stimuli with S+ and S- functions
Summary
This study investigated the effects of pseudoword discrimination training that either required or didn’t require selection responses upon control by stimulus elements and recombination of elements, and upon stimulus observation. Eight undergraduate students were exposed to two conditions with discriminative training and stimulus control test. Studies shedding light on situations in which this phenomenon is harmful often call it “attention problems” (e.g., Kooistra et al, 1996; Zentall & Kruczek, 1988) These “problems” have been interpreted, from a behavioral-analytic standpoint, as failures to establish control by the relevant elements of a stimulus in new Submetido: 25/07/2017; Revisado: 10/09/2018; Aceito: 19/04/2019. According to Dube et al (2016), the matching-to-sample task consists on presenting a multipleelement sample stimulus and removing the sample before presenting a set of comparison stimuli
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
