Using Stimulus-Equivalence Technology to Teach Skills About Nutritional Content
A quick matching-to-sample lesson creates accurate carb-range classes in almost every adult.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team taught adults to group foods by how many carbs they have.
They used conditional-discrimination drills. Each adult matched pictures to printed carb ranges like 0-10 g or 21-30 g.
Most classes had five items; a few had three. All 22 adults were neurotypical and lived in Norway.
What they found
After training, 21 of 22 adults could sort new foods into the right carb band without further teaching.
The new sorting showed the equivalence classes had formed and transferred to real grocery items.
How this fits with other research
Debert et al. (2009) got the same strong result with adults, but they used Go/No-Go instead of matching-to-sample. Both studies show equivalence training works in a single lab afternoon.
Winett et al. (1991) gave the early map of what equivalence means. Arntzen et al. (2020) simply took that map and aimed it at a life skill—reading labels.
Gilroy (2022) talks about a different kind of equivalence inside math models. It has no overlap with teaching people to sort food, so you can skip it for lesson planning.
Why it matters
You can use the same brief matching drill to teach clients, staff, or parents how to eyeball carb portions. Pick five common foods, pair each with a carb range, run a short match-to-sample block, then test with new foods. One 20-minute session can build a skill that lasts and supports better meal choices.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Build a 5-item carb-range equivalence set with pictures of foods your client eats and run 20 match-to-sample trials.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Twenty-two adult participants, assigned to three conditions, were trained nutrition knowledge (i.e., carbohydrate values) for different food items. In a stimulus sorting test, the participants were asked to sort stimuli (names of food items) into one of three different ranges of carbohydrate values ("less than 20", "20–40", "more than 40" gram per 100 gram). Conditional-discrimination training and testing followed the sorting test, and finally, a postclass formation sorting test of the stimuli used in the conditional-discrimination training. The conditional-discrimination training used tailored stimuli, that is, the food items that each of the participants categorized incorrectly in the sorting test. Participants exposed to Conditions 1 and 2 were trained on six conditional discriminations and tested for the formation of three 3-member classes. Conditions 2 and 3 had a “don’t know” option together with the three different ranges of carbohydrate values in the sorting for tailoring the stimuli. Participants exposed to Condition 3 trained were trained on 12 conditional discriminations and tested for the formation of three 5-member classes. The main findings showed that all but one of the participants responded correctly on at least one test for equivalence class formation and sorted the stimuli correctly in the postclass formation sorting test.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2020 · doi:10.1007/s40614-020-00250-2