The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
THE ROLE OF MULTIPLE‐EXEMPLAR TRAINING AND NAMING IN ESTABLISHING DERIVED EQUIVALENCE IN AN INFANT
Open accessAbstract
The conditions under which symmetry and equivalence relations develop are still controversial. This paper reports three experiments that attempt to analyze the impact of multiple‐exemplar training (MET) in receptive symmetry on the emergence of visual‐visual equivalence relations with a very young child, Gloria. At the age of 15 months 24 days (15m24d), Gloria was tested for receptive symmetry and naming and showed no evidence of either repertoire. In the first experiment, MET in immediate and delayed receptive symmetrical responding or listener behavior (from object‐sound to immediate and delayed sound‐object selection) proceeded for one month with 10 different objects. This was followed, at 16m25d, by a second test conducted with six new objects. Gloria showed generalized receptive symmetry with a 3‐hr delay; however no evidence of naming with new objects was found. Experiment 2 began at 17m with the aim of establishing derived visual‐visual equivalence relations using a matching‐to‐sample format with two comparisons. Visual‐visual equivalence responding emerged at 19m, although Gloria still had not shown evidence of naming. Experiment 3 (22m to 23m25d) used a three‐comparison matching‐to‐sample procedure to establish visual‐visual equivalence. Equivalence responding emerged as in Experiment 2, and naming emerged by the end of Experiment 3. Results are discussed in terms of the history of training in bidirectional relations responsible for the emergence of visual‐visual equivalence relations and of their implications for current theories of stimulus equivalence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Growing evidence indicates that the core ability to relate symbols and objects in this way when relationships are arbitrarily applicable is learned (e.g., Barnes-Holmes et al. 2004), beginning in infancy (e.g., Luciano et al. 2007).”
From Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change (2014) · cites this paper as Luciano et al. 2007
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition
Barnes‐Holmes, Y., Hayes, S. C., Barnes‐Holmes, D., & Roche, B. T. (2001) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-2482 · Cited by 1,975
CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION VS. MATCHING TO SAMPLE: AN EXPANSION OF THE TESTING PARADIGM
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5 · Cited by 1,638
Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition
(2001) · doi:10.1007/b108413 · Cited by 1,296
(1994) · Cited by 1,200
Attention, Memory, and Executive Function
Lyon, G. R., Krasnegor, N. A., & McMenamin, S. (1996) · Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics · doi:10.1097/00004703-199608000-00014 · Cited by 972
ON THE ORIGINS OF NAMING AND OTHER SYMBOLIC BEHAVIOR
Horne, P. J., Lowe, C. F., & Lowe, C. F. (1996) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185 · Cited by 834
THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMITATION BY REINFORCING BEHAVIORAL SIMILARITY TO A MODEL1
Baer, D. M., Peterson, R. F., & Sherman, J. A. (1967) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1967.10-405 · Cited by 492
EQUIVALENCE CLASS FORMATION IN LANGUAGE‐ABLE AND LANGUAGE‐DISABLED CHILDREN
Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1986) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.46-243 · Cited by 461
A California Sea Lion (Zalophus Californianus) is Capable of Forming Equivalence Relations
Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. A. (1993) · The Psychological Record · doi:10.1007/bf03395915 · Cited by 317
The verbal action of the listener as a basis for rule-governance.
Hayes, S., & Hayes, L. (1989) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-0447-1_5 · Cited by 294
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bzoch K. R., 2003, Receptive‐expressive emergent language test
- Cabello F., 2005, Aprendizaje relacional de distintas modalidades estimulares: Implicaciones de la conducta verbal. [Relational learning across different sensory modalities: Implications of verbal behavior]
- Fenson L., 1993, MacArthur communicative development inventories: User's guide and technical manual
- Horne P. J., 2000, Issues in experimental and applied analysis of human behavior, 127
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as a Unified Model of Behavior Change
Hayes, S. C., Pistorello, J., & Levin, M. E. (2012) · The Counseling Psychologist · doi:10.1177/0011000012460836 · Cited by 718
Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change
Wilson, D. S., Hayes, S. C., Biglan, A., & Embry, D. D. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x13001593 · Cited by 255
In search of meaning: Values in modern clinical behavior analysis
Plumb, J. C., Stewart, I., Dahl, J., & Lundgren, T. (2009) · The Behavior Analyst · doi:10.1007/bf03392177 · Cited by 127
Hughes, S., & Barnes‐Holmes, D. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118489857.ch9 · Cited by 114
Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Vahey, N. (2012) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2012.09.003 · Cited by 132
Metadata
- Authors
- Luciano, C., Becerra, I. G., & Valverde, M. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Almería (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Luciano, Carmen
- Venue
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 349-365
- ISSN
- 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-3711
- PMC
- PMC1868588
- OpenAlex
- W2029249244
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 13.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- multiple exemplar training, naming, derived equivalence, stimulus equivalence, infant development, bidirectional relations, matching-to-sample, object naming
- MeSH terms
- Child Language, Humans, Infant, Names, Speech Perception, Teaching, Verbal Behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
