Stimulus Control Justin Daigle, MA, BCBA, LBA

Review of Terms Antecedent – Any event that occurs directly before a target behavior - Could be a MO - Could be a S D

Review of Terms Discriminative Stimulus – An antecedent event which signals that reinforcement is available should the target behavior occur. -Could also signal a punisher.

Stimulus Delta - Often called “S-Delta”. - An antecedent event which does not signal the availability of a reinforcer.

Sun SDSD SDSD S∆S∆ S∆S∆ S∆S∆

At the Beginning -The instruction “Sit Down” is a S ∆ because the behavior does not occur when it is presented. -How do we turn a S ∆ into a S D ?

Stimulus Control When the frequency, latency, duration, or amplitude of a behavior is altered in the presence of a stimulus. AKA – When the stimulus “controls” the behavior.

Stimulus Generalization When an stimulus has a history of evoking a behavior, and the behavior has been reinforced, there is a general tendency for similar stimuli to also evoke that behavior.

Stimulus Generalization “Cat” ->“Meow”->Sr+ “Cats” ->“Meow”

Stimulus Training Picture of Cat->“Meow”->Sr+ Picture and word: Cat ->“Meow”->Sr+ Word: Cat ->“Meow”->Sr+

Stimulus Training But what happens when there is no stimuli that reliably evokes the behavior? What happens if you cannot control the stimuli that evokes the behavior?

Stimulus Training Often times the behaviors occur naturally at “random” times. You have to “catch” the behavior and Sr+

Stimulus Training Once you’ve increased the frequency of the targeted behavior, you have more opportunities to train a stimuli.

Non-Verbal Clients (Assuming babbling occurs) 1) Increase the frequency of words 2) Start to associate different sounds with different items 3) Only Sr+ for “proper sounds”

Complex Question If you are only concerned about measurable behaviors, how can we be sure that the client is actually learning and not just learning “route” tasks? - We can measure generality

Concept Formation A complex example of stimulus control that requires both stimulus generalization within a class of stimuli and discrimination between classes of stimuli.

How We Teach We teach a series of exemplars until concept formation can be observed. Essentially, can the client generalize the skill to a novel situation that has not be explicitly taught.

Watch Again lrHA

Can Pigeons Read? Most would say “no”. But can anyone explain why we feel like these pigeons aren’t “really reading”? How can we teach pigeons to “really read”?

Can Pigeons Read? Perhaps repetition with novel stimuli? Soon the pigeon is taught the complexity of a single word because they have encountered the word in different situations. This is concept formation.

Pavlov S ----> R Conditioning Reflexs

Skinner S ----> R ----> C Operant Conditioning Defined “Behavior”

Sidman S ----> R ----> C Contextualism Context

Clarification The context of the stimuli does not evoke the behavior, but rather may modify it. Sidman argued that it was important to acknowledge the context of the situation.

Putting It Together Sidman acknowledged that outside of Skinner’s “Function” that the environmental “context” of a behavior is an important behavioral factor. Thus, we have the birth of “Functional Contextuialsm”.

Making It Complicated! Sidman wondered if humans can learn without explicitly being taught. Can up with “Stimulus Equivalence”

“Cow”

“Cow” may never be formally trained to the picture. It could happen “naturally”.

Question So can humans learn without being directly taught?

Question So can humans learn without being directly taught? Yes. Through “Derived Relations” or “Derived Relational Responding”

“Cow” Cow

“Cow” Cow

“Cow” Cow

“Cow” Cow

“Cow” Cow

Relational Frames So how is stimulus equivalence different from Relational Frame Theory (RFT)?

RFT vs ABA Disclaimer: RFT is NOT my area of expertise. This information is based on information experts have given me and on articles available to the general public.

Equivalence Stimulus Equivalence is just that: Two stimuli become equivalent (equal to) one another. There is no room for “associations” such as bigger or smaller.

For instance George is taller than Phillip. Phillip is taller than Michael. Who is the shortest?

For instance George is taller than Phillip. Phillip is taller than Michael. Who is the shortest? Michael.

For instance George is taller than Phillip. Phillip is taller than Michael. Who is the shortest? Michael. …but you were never taught that.

Difference #1 Stimulus Equivalence (ABA) is only focused on the equivalence whereas RFT is focused on any relations.

Difference #2 “Stimulus equivalence (like other facets of ABA) is an empirical phenomenon.” “RFT is a behavioral theory about how that phenomenon comes about.” -Eric Fox “How is RFT different from stimulus equivalence?”

Difference #3 Derived Relational Responding is conceptualized as a behavior unto it’s own. Therefore, individuals studying RFT attempt to understand HOW that occurs. ABA would say that the relationship is a “private event” and cannot be measured.

For Instance Sidman was interested only in “WHAT” happened. RFT is interested in the “WHY”. In order to guess “why”, you have to promote a theory. Thus Relational Frame THEORY.

Final Thoughts It is important that you understand the foundations of what you are learning. If you are interested in ACT, RFT, CBT, FAP, etc., be sure to push yourself to under the complexities that underlie your interest. Most of those will come from a strict behavior analysis viewpoint.