Navegando por Assunto "Procedimento blank comparison"
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
- Resultados por página
- Opções de Ordenação
Item Acesso aberto (Open Access) Relações de controle modelo-comparação e equivalência de estímulos em arranjo multinodal(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2002) PEREIRA, Maria Eline Ferreira; KATO, Olivia Misae; http://lattes.cnpq.br/3612219210222465The formation of equivalence classes seems to occur when consistent control by sample-S+ (selection) relations or simultaneous control by both (sample-S+ and sample- S-) types of controlling relations is ensured. Sample-S- controlling relations seems to prevent the emergence of stimulus equivalence. The goal of the present study was to verify the effects of programmed procedures for prompting strict control by rejection (sample-S-) and by selection (sample-S+), or both (sample-S+ and sample-S-) types of controlling relations. The study also aimed the identification of the kind of controlling relation established during training. The participants in Experiment 1 were five students of the first year of high school. Three sets of visual stimuli were used in the prompt training for the three kinds of controlling relations (sample-S+, sample-S-, and both). Responses were made using the mouse. In the initials trials of all conditional discrimination training sessions, a verbal prompt indicated which picture should – or should not – de selected. Throughout the prompt training for sample-S- as well as for sample-S+ controlling relations, either the correct or the incorrect comparison stimulus were replaced by a mask, depending on the case. In the prompting training for both controlling relations, both mask/S- and S+/mask trials types were randomly presented. All participants were exposed to the training of conditional discriminations EF, DE, CD, BC and AB, via matching-to-sample procedure, including the training of the three controlling relations types. After training, probe trials for equivalence (FA, EA. DA, CA, FB, FC, FD and FA) and controlling relations were conducted. Different sequences of prompting training sessions for the three types of controlling relations were presented to each pair of participants. The blank comparison and the novel stimulus tests were adopted for the evaluation of the kind of controlling relation established during training. The participants did not demonstrate equivalence class formation, regardless of the controlling relation established in training. In the blank comparison test after prompting training for the sample-S+ controlling relation, the controlling relations probe showed inconsistent performances for all participants. After the prompt training for the sample- S- relations, the probes indicated the establishment of sample-S+ relations between the sample stimulus and the mask. In the novel stimulus test, the probes showed inconsistent performances for most participants. The results suggest that the programmed training did not prompt the predicted controlling relations. Instead, it developed mixed, inconsistent relations, which seem to have precluded the formation of equivalence classes. The objective of Experiment 2 was to verify the effect of prompt training for the three types of controlling relations on the equivalence class formation. Six participants were exposed to a trial-and-error procedure. The verbal prompt was removed and a trialand- error pre training present the mask replacing the stimuli was implemented to teach conditional discriminations. The remaining conditions of Experiment 1 were maintained. Two participants readily demonstrated equivalence class formation in the condition programmed to develop sample-S+/ sample-S- controlling relations, one of which also demonstrated these emergent performances in the sample-S+ condition. In the blank comparison probes for the sample-S+/ sample-S- condition, all participants selected S+. In the sample-S- condition, 3 participants always selected the mask, indicating the development of sample-S+ control between the sample stimulus and the mask. In the sample-S+ condition, one participant only selected S+, two responded mostly on S+ or S-, and the remaining showed inconsistent responding. In the novel stimulus test for the sample-S+/ sample-S- condition, the two participants who had demonstrated classes equivalence formation responded consistently. In the probes to assess control by selection for the sample-S+ condition, four participants selected only the correct stimulus, and the others responded inconsistently. When control by rejection was assessed, the responses were made mostly on S- and the blank comparison. Only one participants selected the novel stimulus. The results suggest that prompting training for sample-S+ and sample-S+/ sample-S- controlling relations facilitates the formation of equivalence classes, and that the prompt training for sample-S- control prevents equivalence class formation.