The establishment of auditory–visual equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

Zhelezoglo et al. (2021) asked college students to listen to sounds and pick matching pictures. They used a go/no-go setup. One sound played, then two pictures appeared. Students clicked the matching picture or held still if no match existed.

The team wanted to know if people could build new sound-picture groups without direct teaching. They tested symmetry, transitivity, and full equivalence.

Six out of eight students formed new sound-picture groups. Every student showed symmetry. Six also showed transitivity and full equivalence.

The go/no-go method worked. It created new linked classes with only auditory cues and simple feedback.

Hanson et al. (2021) ran the same sound-only go/no-go task the same year. They got the same high rate of equivalence. Together, the two papers show the method is reliable.

Dingus et al. (2025) added a twist. They asked students to talk aloud during the task. Talking right away hurt equivalence. Waiting to talk until after the test kept equivalence high. This extends the original finding and gives a clear warning: save think-aloud probes for later.

Madden et al. (2003) used naming with pictures, not sounds, and saw better matching. The 2021 sound study did not require naming, yet classes still formed. The two studies sit side-by-side: naming helps when you use pictures, but you can skip it with sounds and still get equivalence.

If you teach learners who rely on auditory cues, try go/no-go successive matching. It builds new classes fast and needs no extra prompts. Skip talk-aloud checks until after the test to avoid blocking the effect. Use this method when visual materials are scarce or when learners already talk too much and skip listening.