Electrophysiological correlates of stimulus equivalence processes.
Passing equivalence tests actually changes how the brain treats related stimuli.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Barry and team wired up 12 college students with EEG caps.
They taught them to match nonsense shapes using matching-to-sample.
After training, they gave equivalence tests while recording brain waves.
What they found
Before passing tests, related and unrelated shapes looked the same in the brain.
After passing tests, the brain responded differently to related shapes.
This shows testing itself helps lock in stimulus classes.
How this fits with other research
Hopkinson et al. (2003) found kids with severe ID can form classes without words.
Barry shows neurotypical adults' brains change after testing.
Together they prove naming isn't needed for equivalence - brains and behavior align.
Tantam et al. (1993) showed functions transfer through equivalence.
Barry adds brain evidence for why this happens - testing strengthens the links.
O'Connor et al. (2020) used the same training with kids with autism.
Barry's EEG data helps explain why the kids could derive new relations.
Why it matters
You now have brain proof that testing isn't just checking - it's teaching.
Run those extra probe trials. The act of testing helps solidify the classes you're building.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add extra equivalence probe trials after teaching new conditional discriminations.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Research reported here concerns neural processes relating to stimulus equivalence class formation. In Experiment 1, two types of word pairs were presented successively to normally capable adults. In one type, the words had related usage in English (e.g., uncle, aunt). In the other, the two words were not typically related in their usage (e.g., wrist, corn). For pairs of both types, event-related cortical potentials were recorded during and immediately after the presentation of the second word. The obtained waveforms differentiated these two types of pairs. For the unrelated pairs, the waveforms were significantly more negative about 400 ms after the second word was presented, thus replicating the "N400" phenomenon of the cognitive neuroscience literature. In addition, there was a strong positive-tending wave form difference post-stimulus presentation (peaked at about 500 ms) that also differentiated the unrelated from related stimulus pairs. In Experiment 2, the procedures were extended to study arbitrary stimulus-stimulus relations established via matching-to-sample training. Participants were experimentally naïve adults. Sample stimuli (Set A) were trigrams, and comparison stimuli (Sets B, C, D, E, and F) were nonrepresentative forms. Behavioral tests evaluated potentially emergent equivalence relations (i.e., BD, DF, CE, etc.). All participants exhibited classes consistent with the arbitrary matching training. They were also exposed also to an event-related potential procedure like that used in Experiment 1. Some received the ERP procedure before equivalence tests and some after. Only those participants who received ERP procedures after equivalence tests exhibited robust N400 differentiation initially. The positivity observed in Experiment 1 was absent for all participants. These results support speculations that equivalence tests may provide contextual support for the formation of equivalence classes including those that emerge gradually during testing.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2009 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.92-245