Emergent conditional relations in a Go/No-Go procedure: figure-ground and stimulus-position compound relations.
Go/No-Go successive discrimination with compound stimuli produces emergent equivalence relations without matching-to-sample.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Paula and team tested 11 college students with no known disabilities. They used a Go/No-Go task instead of the usual matching-to-sample setup.
Each person saw compound pictures: a shape on a colored background, or a shape in a certain spot. They learned to press for some pairs and withhold for others.
What they found
Every adult formed new stimulus classes without ever doing a match-to-sample trial. The Go/No-Go method alone created equivalence relations.
Two layouts worked: figure-ground (shape + color) and stimulus-position (shape + place). Both produced the same emergent performances.
How this fits with other research
Winett et al. (1991) drew the first roadmap between stimulus equivalence and verbal behavior. Debert et al. (2009) now show you can reach that destination with a simpler car.
Gilroy (2022) talks about hidden math equivalence in demand curves. The link: both studies remind us that different-looking procedures can end at the same point.
Avellaneda (2025) models choice with equations. Paula’s group skips equations and lets the participant’s own Go/No-Go history do the modeling in real time.
Why it matters
If you teach learners who struggle with long match-to-sample sessions, try Go/No-Go. You can run quick trials on a tablet: press the happy face, ignore the sad one. After a few blocks, test for emergent relations without any extra training. It saves time and may cut escape behaviors sparked by complex instructions.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a five-minute Go/No-Go block: one shape on two colors, press for color A, withhold for color B, then probe emergent relations.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Past research has demonstrated emergent conditional relations using a go/no-go procedure with pairs of figures displayed side-by-side on a computer screen. The present study sought to extend applications of this procedure. In Experiment 1, we evaluated whether emergent conditional relations could be demonstrated when two-component stimuli were displayed in figure-ground relationships-abstract figures displayed on backgrounds of different colors. Five normally capable adults participated. During training, each two-component stimulus was presented successively. Responses emitted in the presence of some stimulus pairs (A1B1, A2B2, A3B3, B1C1, B2C2 and B3C3) were reinforced, whereas responses emitted in the presence of other pairs (A1B2, A1B3, A2B1, A2B3, A3B1, A3B2, B1C2, B1C3, B2C1, B2C3, B3C1 and B3C2) were not. During tests, new configurations (AC and CA) were presented, thus emulating structurally the matching-to-sample tests employed in typical equivalence studies. All participants showed emergent relations consistent with stimulus equivalence during testing. In Experiment 2, we systematically replicated the procedures with stimulus compounds consisting of four figures (A1, A2, C1 and C2) and two locations (left - B1 and right - B2). All 6 normally capable adults exhibited emergent stimulus-stimulus relations. Together, these experiments show that the go/no-go procedure is a potentially useful alternative for studying emergent conditional relations when matching-to-sample is procedurally cumbersome or impossible to use.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2009 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.92-233