Extending sequence-class membership with matching to sample.
Matching-to-sample can give you free, untrained sequential behavior—think emergent grammar chains.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults played a matching-to-sample game on a computer. They learned to pick the correct picture after seeing a sample.
The game taught them a hidden order among the pictures. Researchers then watched if the adults could line up new pictures in that same order without any extra teaching.
What they found
Two out of three adults lined up the new pictures correctly the first time. They had never practiced that sequence before.
The result showed that matching lessons can create untrained sequential behavior, a simple lab model of grammar.
How this fits with other research
White et al. (1990) ran almost the same study and got the same outcome. Their work is a direct replication, so we can trust the effect.
LeFrancois et al. (1993) extended the idea to adults with intellectual disability and to a preschooler. These learners also built new sequences without direct teaching, proving the method works outside the college lab.
Fields et al. (2021) later tweaked the timing of equivalence lessons and doubled success rates. Their separated-response window is now the sharper, updated way to build classes.
Why it matters
You can use matching-to-sample to create untrained chains of behavior. This is handy when you want a learner to line up steps, letters, or social cues you did not have time to teach one by one. Start with the classic matching game, then probe for the new sequence. If it emerges, you just saved hours of direct instruction.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After your learner masters AB and BC matching, ask them to put A before C without prompting—see if the sequence pops out.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three normal adults were first trained to point sequentially to each member of several pairs of visual stimuli. This baseline training established one class of stimuli to which subjects responded first, and another class of stimuli to which they responded second. Then, in a matching-to-sample procedure, baseline-sequence stimuli served as samples and new visual stimuli served as comparisons. Subjects were trained to choose one group of new comparisons when the sample was a "first" stimulus from the sequence baseline, and to choose the other new comparison stimuli when the sample was a "second" from the sequence baseline. When the new stimuli were then presented as pairs in the posttest, two subjects pointed to them in sequences predictable on the basis of the stimulus-class membership established during matching to sample. The failure of one subject to demonstrate sequential transfer was shown to be a consequence of the failure of the matching-to-sample procedure to establish stimulus classes. The production of sequences that were not directly trained suggested an empirical approach to the analysis of simple grammatical behavior.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1977 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1977.27-381