On the discriminative control of concurrent responses: the relations among response frequency, latency, and topography in auditory generalization.
During stimulus generalization, response latency peaks where response probabilities are most equal—plan extra prompts or time at those ambiguous stimulus values.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The researchers asked adults to say one of two nonsense words when they heard a tone.
The tones varied in pitch.
The team recorded which word the person chose and how long they waited before speaking.
What they found
People hesitated longest at the pitch that made both words feel equally likely.
Where choices were 50-50, reaction time peaked.
This created a smooth hill-shaped latency curve across the pitch range.
How this fits with other research
Nevin (1968) later showed that if you pay the person for not answering, the hill flattens.
The hesitation shrinks because withholding now pays off.
Lalli et al. (1995) found the same latency hill in students with autism during escape extinction.
Their problem behavior also slowed most when two escape routes felt equal.
Together the three studies say: equal response strength equals extra pause time.
Why it matters
When you probe generalization, watch for the pause, not just the answer.
Long latency signals an ambiguous stimulus that the learner is treating as 50-50.
Give an extra prompt or model at that point instead of waiting for an error.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Time each response during your next generalization probe; add a prompt when latency jumps.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Human subjects were used in a study of auditory generalization following multiple-response discrimination training. The relations observed among stimulus intensity, response probability, and response latency were invariant with respect to whether the two vocal responses conditioned were topographically discrete, as in one experiment, or topographically continuous, as in another. The major findings were:1. The probabilities associated with a specific response were maximal over several stimulus values at the extreme ends of the continuum, then dropped sharply at stimuli intermediate to the initial S(D)'s as the probability of the alternative response increased.2. Overall response latency was inversely related to the relative frequency of the two responses at each stimulus value. When the two responses were most nearly equal in probability, latencies were maximal; when one response had close to unit or zero probability, latencies were minimal.3. Analysis of the latencies of the two responses, taken separately, revealed: (a) an increase in latency as the difference between the test stimulus and the initial S(D) increased; (b) a sharp discontinuity in the latency gradient and reversal in trend at intermediate stimulus intensities; and (c) at a given stimulus value, latencies associated with the stochastically dominant response were consistently shorter than those of the nondominant response.4. No changes in response topography (fundamental frequency) were correlated with the characteristic changes in probability and latency during stimulus generalization.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1962 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1962.5-487