↓ Skip to main content

Using action dynamics to assess competing stimulus control during stimulus equivalence testing

Overview of attention for article published in Learning & Behavior, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Using action dynamics to assess competing stimulus control during stimulus equivalence testing
Published in
Learning & Behavior, February 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13420-013-0102-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Denis P. O’Hora, Ian T. Tyndall, Mairéad McMorrow, Rick A. C. Dale

Abstract

Previous studies have identified potential sources of competing stimulus control in tests for stimulus equivalence. The present experiment employed the Nintendo Wii remote (Wiimote®) to investigate whether such competition would affect suboperant action dynamics (e.g., topographies of equivalence responses). Following one-to-many training on conditional discriminations sufficient to establish three 3-member equivalence classes, participants were presented with a test for equivalence responding that included five different trial types. These included "traditional" equivalence trials, on which the incorrect stimulus had previously been presented as a correct comparison stimulus during training, trials on which a novel unrelated word was provided as the incorrect comparison, and trials on which the incorrect stimulus varied in orthographical and phonological similarity to the sample stimulus. The presence of phonological and orthographic distractor stimuli significantly reduced the probability of equivalence-consistent responding, relative to neutral distractors, but this effect was almost exclusively seen in participants who failed to demonstrate equivalence on traditional equivalence trials. Analyses of correct response trajectories suggested that the prior history of reinforcement for choosing the incorrect stimulus on the traditional equivalence trial gave rise to greater competition than did phonological or orthographic similarity between the sample and incorrect comparisons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Italy 1 5%
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 17 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Other 6 30%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Mathematics 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Learning & Behavior
#222
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,381
of 292,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Learning & Behavior
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them