RESUMEN
We evaluated emergent stimulus-stimulus relations after two different training procedures. Participants were five typically developing preschool children and three individuals with Down Syndrome. Experiment 1 used two-comparison matching to sample (MTS) to establish AB and BC relations. Experiment 2 used two-comparison and blank-comparison MTS, each on 50% of training trials to establish AB and BC relations. In both experiments, tests for emergent relations (AC, CA) were conducted to assess equivalence class formation. In Experiment 2 subsequently, class expansion was assessed after CD training. All participants showed positive equivalence test outcomes. Seven showed class expansion. After class formation tests in both studies, probe tests were conducted for select and reject relations in baseline relations. Initial results were somewhat variable, but became more consistent after class expansion.
RESUMEN
When the matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure is used, different training structures imply differences in the successive discriminations required in training and test conditions. When the go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli is used, however, differences in training structures do not imply such differences. This study assessed whether the go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli with different training structures would produce significant variations in emergent performances. Fourteen undergraduate students were divided into two training groups: OTM and MTO (one-to-many and many-to-one). During training, responses emitted in the presence of compounds defined as related were reinforced. Responses emitted in the presence of compounds defined as not-related were not. During tests, new compounds structurally emulated MTS equivalence tests. All participants finished training with comparable number of sessions and 13 of 14 showed emergent performances. These results suggest that differences in equivalence-test outcomes with OTM and MTO training structures in MTS procedures may be due to their different successive discrimination requirements.