New knowledge derived from learned knowledge: functional-anatomic correlates of stimulus equivalence.
Derived stimulus-equivalence relations activate the same brain networks as trained relations, plus extra prefrontal and basal-ganglia activity.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers put adults through matching-to-sample lessons. Each correct pick got a green check; wrong picks got a red X.
After the lessons, the team slid each adult into an fMRI scanner. They watched which brain areas lit up when the person saw brand-new pairs that had never been taught.
What they found
Untaught pairs fired the same brain networks as the trained pairs. The catch: extra activity popped up in the front of the brain and in the basal ganglia.
In plain words, the brain treats derived relations like real ones, but it works a little harder to do it.
How this fits with other research
Haimson et al. (2009) used EEG and saw the same pattern. Once adults passed the equivalence test, their brain waves changed for the new pairs. The two studies line up: one shows where the activity happens, the other shows when.
Tantam et al. (1993) proved that new stimuli can control behavior without direct training. Jones et al. (2007) now show us the brain map behind that old finding.
Busch et al. (2010) and Ruiz-Sánchez et al. (2019) warn that the same process can plant false memories. The extra prefrontal work seen in Jones et al. (2007) may explain why people later "remember" pairs they never studied.
Why it matters
You now have brain evidence that derived relations are real to the learner. Use short equivalence trains when you want big gains with little teaching time. Watch for false recall if you repeat the tests too often. One quick check: after your learner masters A-B and B-C, scan for the untaught A-C response. If it shows up, you know the brain already filed them together.
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 two conditional relations, probe the untaught combination once and record the result before any extra trials.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Forming new knowledge based on knowledge established through prior learning is a central feature of higher cognition that is captured in research on stimulus equivalence (SE). Numerous SE investigations show that reinforcing behavior under control of distinct sets of arbitrary conditional relations gives rise to stimulus control by new, derived relations. This investigation examined whether frontal-subcortical and frontal-parietal networks known to support reinforced conditional relations also support derived conditional relations. Twelve adult subjects completed matching-to-sample (MTS) training with correct/wrong feedback to establish four trained conditional relations within two distinct, three-member stimulus classes: (1) A1-->B1, B1-->C1 and (2) A2-->B2, B2-->C2. Afterwards, functional neuroimaging was performed when MTS trials were presented involving matching two identical circles (a sensorimotor control condition), trained relations (A-->B, B-->C), and derived relations: symmetry (B-->A, C-->B), transitivity (A-->C), and equivalence (C-->A). Conditional responding to trained and derived relations was similarly correlated with bilateral activation in the targeted networks. Comparing trained to derived relations, however, highlighted greater activation in several prefrontal regions, the caudate, thalamus, and putamen, which may represent the effects of extended training or feedback present during imaging. Each derived relation also evidenced a unique activation pattern. Collectively, the findings extend the role of frontal-subcortical and frontal-parietal networks to derived conditional relations and suggest that regional involvement varies with the type of derived conditional relation.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2007 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2007.93-05