THE EFFECTS OF BLOCKING TASKS ON JOINT CONTROLLED SEQUENCING

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

Psychology

(Applied Behavior Analysis)

by

Curtis William Clough

SPRING 2015

ii

© 2015

Curtis William Clough

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iii

THE EFFECTS OF BLOCKING TASKS ON JOINT CONTROLLED SEQUENCING

A Thesis

by

Curtis William Clough

Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair Caio Miguel, Ph.D. __________________________________, Second Reader Megan Heinicke, Ph.D. __________________________________, Third Reader Joyce Tu, Ed.D. ____________________________ Date

iv

Student: Curtis William Clough

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University

format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to

be awarded for the thesis.

__________________________, Graduate Coordinator __________________ Jianjian Qin, Ph.D. Date

Department of Psychology

v

Abstract of

THE EFFECTS OF BLOCKING TASKS ON JOINT CONTROLLED SEQUENCING

by

Curtis William Clough

The current study evaluated the effects of vocal and motor blocking tasks on sequencing

visual stimuli for 16 participants. In Experiment 1, we trained participants to vocally tact

stimuli and blocked vocal-verbal mediation during sequencing. In Experiment 2, we

taught participants to tact one set of stimuli vocally and another with hand signs, and

blocked verbal and motor mediation. In Experiment 3, we assessed the effects of verbal

blocking on sequences established via tact training and imitation (matching). Fifteen of

16 participants passed vocal sequencing tests, and five of eight passed hand-signed tests.

Three of eight participants required joint control training for stimuli taught via hand signs.

Vocal blocking procedures prevented accurate sequencing on vocal and hand signed

sequences, but not sequences established via imitation. Combined results suggest vocal

blocking procedures prevent verbal mediation, and training all joint control components

is not necessary for adults to sequence stimuli.

_______________________, Committee Chair

Caio Miguel, Ph.D.

_______________________ Date

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deepest gratitude to the individuals whose ongoing support, advice, and

guidance have helped me achieve this academic and professional milestone:

To Dr. Caio Miguel, for inspiring continuous growth as a scientist-practitioner.

His commitment as my academic advisor has helped me immensely in my graduate

career.

To my committee members, Dr. Megan Heinicke and Dr. Joyce Tu, whose

insightful questions and suggestions, have influenced the development of this study.

To Cara Meyer, Tim Fechter, and Stephanie Cran, for conducting and analyzing

all research sessions with me across the span of two semesters.

To the member of the Verbal Behavior Research Laboratory, who consistently

provided valuable feedback, and modeled high standards for academic excellence.

To the Applied Behavior Analysis students, who have made this academic

journey so memorable with their friendships and moral support.

To Michelle Gilkey, for her patience, care, and support, from start to finish.

To my parents, whom I cannot thank enough for their endless support, love, and

all they have done to help me be the person I am today.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. viii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

2. EXPERIMENT 1 ....................................................................................................... 12

Method ................................................................................................................. 12

Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 20

3. EXPERIMENT 2 ....................................................................................................... 24

Method ................................................................................................................. 24

Results and Discussion ....................................................................................… 30

4. EXPERIMENT 3 ....................................................................................................... 37

Method ................................................................................................................. 37

Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 39

5. GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 43

Appendix: Testing and Training Datasheets .................................................................. 49

References........................................................................................................................ 52

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1. Four-Stimuli Sequences ………….…………….………………………................... 14

2. Order and Set Assignment for Experimental Conditions in Experiment 1. …………15

3. Number of Trial Blocks Required to Reach Mastery Criterion for Echoic,

Vocal Tact, Joint Control Training.………...………………………….........…….... 22

4. Order and Set Assignment for Experimental Conditions in Experiment 2 ................ 26

5. Number of Trial Blocks Required to Reach Mastery Criterion for Echoic,

Vocal Tact, Joint Control, Mimetic, Hand Sign Tact, and Hand Sign Joint

Control Training ....…………………………...………………………………….......34

6. Order and Set Assignment for Experimental Conditions in Experiment 3 ................ 38

7. Number of Trial Blocks Required to Reach Mastery Criterion for Echoic,

and Vocal Tact Training ......................................................………...….….………. 41

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Page

1. Sets of stimuli. Pictures of objects with their sign and vocal names (spelled phonetically) ……………………….………...…………...

13

2. Percentages of correct sequences (closed triangles) of Participants

1, 2, 3, and 4 across each sequencing and blocking phase during

Experiment 1 .................…..……...……………………………….

23

3. Percentages of correct sequences for sets using vocal (open

squares) and signing procedures (closed triangles), across each

sequencing and blocking phase during Experiment 2, for

Participants 5, 6, 7, and 8, with the use of an audible metronome…

35

4. Percentages of correct sequences for sets using vocal (open

squares) and signing procedures (closed triangles), across each

sequencing and blocking phase during Experiment 2, for

Participants 9, 10, 11, and 12, without the use of an audible

metronome.…………………………………………………..…….

36

5. Percentages of correct sequences for sets using vocal procedures

(open squares) and sequence matching (closed triangles), across

each sequencing and blocking phase during Experiment 3, for

Participants 13, 14, 15, and 16……………………………………..

42

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Conditional discrimination (Catania, 1997) accounts for the operant relation

between a behavior and a stimulus in the presence of another stimulus. For example,

correctly selecting a number or letter from an array, upon being asked to do so, can be

explained as an operant behavior learned through a history of reinforcement for selection

in the presence of the auditory stimulus. This relation does not require any further

analysis to explain how one might engage in these kinds of tasks. However, unlike

scenarios in which correct selection is likely to be a by-product of simple contingency

shaping, novel or untrained relations, when displayed by human participants, may need to

be explained by appealing to some form of mediation (Lowenkron, 2004). Mediating

behavior can be described as any additional behavior that facilitates generalized or

abstract responding that cannot be explained by operant shaping. For instance, choosing a

specific sequence of letters in order, such as “AXADRFG,” is not likely to be a behavior

that has resulted in reinforcement.

There are at least two theoretical accounts and related supporting literature that

have investigated how verbal behavior may serve to mediate novel or untrained relations:

joint control (e.g., Lowenkron, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1998, 2006a; Lowenkron &

Colvin, 1992, 1995; Sidener & Michael, 2006), and naming (e.g., Horne & Lowe, 1996;

Horne, Lowe, & Harris, 2007; Horne et al, 2004; Horne, Hughes, & Lowe, 2006; Kobari-

Wright & Miguel, 2014; Lowe, Horne, Harris, & Randle, 2002; Mahoney, Miguel,

2

Ahearn, & Bell, 2011; Miguel & Kobari-Wright, 2013). Since the proposed study will

focus on the joint control account, readers are referred to Horne and Lowe (1996, 1997)

for a detailed description of naming.

Joint control (Lowenkron, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1998, 2004; Lowenkron &

Colvin, 1992, 1995) is a behavioral framework that accounts for potential mechanisms

responsible for complex verbally mediated behavior such as delayed discrimination.

Lowenkron (1998) described joint control as, “a discrete event, a change in stimulus

control that occurs when a response topography evoked by one stimulus and preserved by

rehearsal, is emitted under the additional control of a second stimulus” (p. 332). Typically,

joint control is explained as self-echoic and tact relations jointly exerting control over

selection responses in the form of a descriptive autoclitic (Lowenkron, 1991; Skinner,

1957). For example, when looking for a specific address described by a friend, one would

rehearse the stated sequence of numbers (i.e., self-echoic) while stating the numbers of

visible addresses (i.e., tact1). In this scenario, one would choose an address when both the

self-echoic and tact relations evoke the same response topography (i.e., same sequence of

numbers) and, since this selection is controlled by the events that control other verbal

behavior, it is described as a descriptive autoclitic (Skinner, 1957). In the case that the

sample is visual, such as finding all objects of a particular shape, one would tact the

comparison (e.g., “round”), echo this response product, tact the comparisons, and then

select the shapes whose tacts and self-echoic produce the same response product (i.e., 1 The tact description is used here to provide an example of how a stimulus could evoke verbal behavior. However, it should be noted that reading numbers is technically a textual response as described by Skinner (1957).

3

“round”).

Lowenkron (1984, 1988, 1989) initially demonstrated the role of joint control as a

verbal mediation strategy by training self-echoics to occur in measureable manners. In

one such study, Lowenkron (1988) taught adolescents (ages 13-17 years) with

developmental disabilities to select identical pictures amongst four comparisons, after the

matching picture was removed, using a matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure (Sidman,

1971). Participants, who could not select identical pictures following removal of the

sample, were first taught to use hand signs to tact the pictures. The experimenter then

taught the participants to rest their hand on a rail while maintaining the sign used to tact

each picture for four of the stimuli. Once maintenance of hand sign tacts occurred

consistently in the presence of sample comparison (i.e., shape), reinforcement was

provided for holding the signs constant when the samples were removed. Each of the

participants then made accurate selections when the sample pictures were removed. In

addition, generalization tests showed that the participants would make accurate selections

of identical stimuli, after delays, with a novel set of pictures when hand signs were

maintained until comparisons were presented. Thus, the author concluded that selections

were likely to be dependent upon the momentary joint occurrence of the maintained hand

sign, and the tact evoked by the target stimulus. These results were further replicated in

subsequent studies by Lowenkron & Colvin who showed that selection responses can be

made by when tact and self-echoics do and do not match (1992); and how rehearsed

orders of stimuli facilitate selection of picture names (1995).

As an attempt to evaluate the role of joint control over selection behavior evoked

4

by hand sign as well as vocal samples in four children with autism (ages 7-9 years), Tu

(2006) trained participants to accurately select arbitrary pictures in the presence of their

dictated names, through the use of self-echoic and tact responses. The experimenter first

trained the participants to tact four pictures one at a time, and subsequently tested

accurate selections given their dictated names, amongst one another, in an auditory-visual

matching to sample format. Only one participant, who was observed to repeat the names

spoken by the experimenter, selected the comparisons accurately. In the subsequent phase,

the participants learned to engage in joint control responding by first rehearsing the

sample (i.e., the sample) and then to tacting any comparison selected (i.e., after selection).

For two additional sets taught in this manner, accurate selection responses did not occur

without overt rehearsal. In a second experiment, the experimenter taught four children

with developmental delays in the same manner, but used hand signs to teach tact and

mimetic (i.e., hand sign rehearsal) behavior. As with the first experiment, accurate

selection responses only occurred after the experimenter trained the children to engage in

joint control responding (i.e., self-echoic and tact responding).

Causin, Albert, Carbone, & Sweeney-Kerwin (2013) utilized a multiple probe

design across three participants (ages 6-17 years) with autism, to show that accurate order

sequencing of learned pictures increased after teaching participants to engage in rehearsal

responses (i.e., joint control training). Two participants were trained using vocal

procedures, and one using hand sign procedures. For vocal procedures, the experimenter

first trained vocal rehearsal of three randomly chosen names of pictures. During hand

sign procedures, the experimenter trained the participants to sign vocally dictated names.

5

After completing the rehearsal requirement, the instructor initially repeated the dictated

sequence, and held out an open hand to prompt selection of the dictated pictures in the

order stated, amongst 12 exemplars. Following joint control training procedures, each

participant accurately selected three randomly chosen pictures. In addition, joint control

training was found to be effective in increasing untrained selections for the three

participants during probe trials conducted with stimuli that had not been used during

training conditions.

In this study, and further extensions (Causin et al, 2013; Lowenkron, 1984 1988,

1989, 2006b; Sidener & Michael, 2006; Tu, 2006), selection of comparisons in response

to dictated samples has been shown to occur only upon the demonstration of both joint

control components (i.e., self-echoic and tact responding). However, it is possible that

additional variables could have been responsible for improved selection performance

such as exposure to training and testing conditions. Thus, a few studies have attempted to

show that joint control is necessary by demonstrating how restriction of rehearsal

responding influences selection responses. During these blocking procedures, some form

of incompatible verbal behavior is required to occur during selection responses (i.e.,

blocking procedures).

Lowenkron (2006b) demonstrated the importance of both the tact and self-echoic

by restricting the emission of rehearsal behavior during MTS. In the first experiment, six

typically developing children (ages 5-7 years) were trained to rehearse the names (self-

echoic) and then select (listener) six different three word descriptions referring to color,

shape, and border features (i.e., king-bus-clip, leaf-trap-check, pond-flag-sol) in the

6

presence of their dictated names. Following this training, the children did not reliably tact

the items using their three-word description names, and it was not until the participants

learned to tact the individual features of each stimulus separately that they could tact

these stimuli or novel combinations of color, shape, and border features. In the second

experiment, four children (ages 6-7 years) learned to tact the individual features of

familiar compound stimuli (e.g., gray-fish-dots, brown-tree-ladder, green-chair-line). The

experimenter then required the participants to vocalize names of shown numbers for

various amounts of time between the presentation of the sample stimulus and

comparisons (i.e., blocking). Accurate selection was less likely to occur during these

blocking trials. The authors suggested that that both the tact and the self-echoic

components in joint control might have been necessary for generalized stimulus selection,

since when they were prevented, participants could not accurately select comparisons.

In a similar study, Gutierrez (2006) taught six adult females to rehearse the

Chinese Mandarin names for four common household items (i.e., pen, cup, fork, water) in

their absence, and then tact the pictures of each of these items in Chinese Mandarin. He

then asked the participants to put pictures of the items in random orders described in

Mandarin. Two participants made no errors in sequencing after this task, two produced

chance responding, and the final two demonstrated higher than chance responding (i.e.,

67% and 75% accurate sequencing). These results suggested that at least some of the

participants could not arrange the stimuli, based upon their Mandarin names, without

training to rehearse dictated sequences. Next, all participants learned to rehearse

sequences vocally presented by the experimenter, out loud in Chinese Mandarin (e.g., pen,

7

cup, fork, water), while arranging the pictures in the same order. After this training, all

participants, including those who did not pass previous sequence tests, produced accurate

arrangements with at least 80% accuracy. In the final phase, the experimenter required

the participants to sing a song (i.e., “Happy Birthday”) after dictated sequences, and

constantly until the arrangement was complete. During these trials, five of the six

participants did not arrange the sequences accurately (range 8%-25%), and the remaining

participant sequenced the pictures with 67% accuracy. The trials without blocking

resulted in an increase in sequence responding to 80% or better accuracy for four of the

six participants. Based on these findings, it was concluded that both components of joint

control (i.e., echoic and tact) were necessary for generalized responding.

In a follow up study, DeGraaf and Schlinger (2012) replicated the procedures

used by Gutierrez (2006) and compared rate of acquisition to accurate sequencing

performance to a prompt and fade procedure. All participants were first exposed to the

prompting and fading procedure, in which the experimenter requested for random

arrangements of four pictures of common household items using Chinese Mandarin.

Following these requests, the experimenter immediately (i.e., 0 s) showed the

arrangement, removed the stimuli, and then requested the same arrangement. Once the

participant made accurate arrangements three consecutive times, the experimenter

implemented at least four delay probes to assess response strength after training. During

these probes, delays between the order instruction and opportunity to arrange the pictures

started at 3 s, and increased by 3 s, until inaccurate responding consistently occurred.

Next, the participants learned to rehearse and tact another set of stimuli, and then to

8

rehearse the sequences presented by the experimenter while arranging them in the orders

stated (i.e., joint control training). In the next phase, the participant arranged the set of

stimuli taught using the joint control procedures following delay probes. The authors

found that participants learned sequencing responses taught with joint control component

training in fewer trials than those taught using the prompting and fading procedure, and

could arrange sequences following longer delays than for those stimuli taught via joint

control component training.

In the final phase DeGraaf et al, implemented blocking procedures for the sets

exposed to joint control training. For six of the 12 trials chosen at random, participants

repeated the American English alphabet or counted backwards from 100 while arranging

the pictures. Four of the five participants did not arrange the sequences accurately during

blocking trials (i.e., less than 50% of blocked trials), and the remaining participant

sequenced the pictures with 80% accuracy. Those trials without blocking resulted in 80%

or better arrangement accuracy for all participants. In a second experiment, the

experimenter exposed five undergraduate students to all procedures involving the

arrangement of stimuli, using the joint control component training only. In order to

control for the possibility that the alphabet rehearsal or counting were not incompatible

with covert rehearsal, the blocking procedure used by Gutierrez (i.e., singing “Happy

Birthday”) was used. All participants produced less than 50% accuracy during these

randomly assigned blocking trials, and four of the five participants sequenced the stimuli

with at least 80% accuracy.

9

Both Gutierrez (2006) and DeGraaf & Schlinger (2012) found generalized

responding to deteriorate during sequencing trials in which a task involving the use of

verbal behavior was included. However, for most participants in these two studies,

correct arrangements were made at above chance level during trials that were intended to

include “incompatible” tasks. Although mentioning such an explanation as implausible,

Palmer (2006) has suggested that blocking tasks may interfere with sequencing tasks

“…not because it disrupted covert rehearsal but simply because it was a distraction” and

any competing behavior could be disruptive. If, in fact, verbal tasks were merely a

distracter, this would invalidate the use of blocking procedures to suggest the occurrence

of joint control.

There were several limitations of the above-mentioned studies that render the

effects of the blocking tasks unclear. First, each participant in DeGraaf (2012) was first

exposed to prompt and fade training prior to training and testing the effects of a joint

control training procedure. It is therefore possible that sequence effects imbedded in the

experimental design could have influenced sequencing performance. Similarly, in

Gutierrez (2006), since sequencing accuracy may have improved following multiple

blocking trials, it is possible that repeated exposure were sufficient to train participants to

respond to the task, suggesting that verbal mediation might not have been necessary to

perform the task. Another limitation was the use of common household items as

comparison stimuli during training and testing. Participants were likely to have had a

previous exposure to these stimuli, and could thus emit tacts in their presence (e.g.,

seeing cup picture and covertly tacting “cup”). When asked to arrange stimuli in specific

10

orders, Chinese Mandarin names may have evoked covert intraverbal behavior such as

saying the English names of the Mandarin names dictated. In this scenario, rehearsal may

have never been required, and blocking trials interrupted a different form of mediation.

Furthermore, mastery criterion for tacting stimuli in both experiments was limited to

three consecutive correct trials. Sequencing accuracy may have therefore deteriorated

following additional trials, not due to the addition of blocking trials, but because the tact

relations were not trained enough to ensure maintenance over time.

Lastly, in the experiment by Gutierrez (2006), many of the adult participants

made multiple arrangement errors after echoic and tact training alone, and performance

improved after rehearsal was directly taught. As mentioned previously, this effect has

been demonstrated in other experiments evaluating the role of joint control (Causin,

Carbone, Sweeney-Kerwin, 2013; Lowenkron, 1984, 1988, 1989, 2006b; Sidener &

Michael, 2006; Tu, 2006), suggesting that both tact and self-echoic are necessary to

engage in generalized responding. Taken together, these limitations indicate further

research is required to evaluate the role of joint control on generalized sequencing tasks.

Thus, the purpose of Experiment 1 was to evaluate the role of joint control on

sequencing random arrangements of arbitrary stimuli using a non-concurrent multiple

baseline design across participants. Additionally, we used a reversal design to assess the

effects of the same blocking procedures used in previous studies. We also embedded a

multi-element design (Exp 2 and 3) to teach or test specific topographies (i.e., vocal, hand

sign, or visual matching) assigned to each set during training.

11

12

Chapter 2

EXPERIMENT 1

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants were four undergraduate psychology students (two females and two

males, ages 21-25) recruited from California State University, Sacramento (CSUS). They

received course credits contingent upon completing the study. The criterion for

participating was based upon availability. Sessions were conducted at the Verbal

Behavior Laboratory on campus, which measured 7 m by 3 m and contained four tables,

nine chairs, three cabinets, and two computer stations. Each student participated in one

session lasting between 45 minutes and 1.5 hours.

Materials

Eight arbitrary names spoken or signed by the experimenter served as sample

stimuli. Eight black and white pictures of abstract figures (7.6 cm x 12.7 cm) served as

corresponding comparisons (see Figure 1). The pictures were randomly assigned into two

different sets, and one set was randomly assigned to two pairs of two participants. Within

each set, the pictures were pre-arranged into 24 distinct sequences (see Table 1). The

order of the conditions is listed in Table 2. All sessions were videotaped with a digital

camera for data collection purposes.

13

“zook”

A1

“sip”

A2

“dox”

A3

“meb”

A4

“tobe”

B1

“boon”

B2

“kace”

B3

“paf”

B4

Figure 1. Sets of stimuli. Pictures of objects with their sign and vocal names (spelled

phonetically).

14

Table 1

Four-Stimuli Sequences

A1, A2, A3, A4

A1, A2, A4, A3

A1, A3, A2, A4

A1, A3, A4, A2

A1, A4, A3, A2

A1, A4, A2, A3

A2, A1, A3, A4

A2, A1, A4, A3

A2, A3, A1, A4

A2, A3, A4, A1

A2, A4, A1, A3

A2, A4, A3, A1

A3, A1, A2, A4

A3, A1, A4, A2

A3, A2, A1, A4

A3, A2, A4, A1

A3, A4, A1, A2

A3, A4, A2, A1

A4, A1, A2, A3

A4, A1, A3, A2

A4, A2, A1, A3

A4, A2, A3, A1

A4, A3, A2, A1

A4, A3, A1, A2

B1, B2, B3, B4

B1, B2, B4, B3

B1, B3, B2, B4

B1, B3, B4, B2

B1, B4, B3, B2

B1, B4, B2, B3

B2, B1, B3, B4

B2, B1, B4, B3

B2, B3, B1, B4

B2, B3, B4, B1

B2, B4, B1, B3

B2, B4, B3, B1

B3, B1, B2, B4

B3, B1, B4, B2

B3, B2, B1, B4

B3, B2, B4, B1

B3, B4, B1, B2

B3, B4, B2, B1

B4, B1, B2, B3

B4, B1, B3, B2

B4, B2, B1, B3

B4, B2, B3, B1

B4, B3, B2, B1

B4, B3, B1, B2

Dependent Measures and Experimental Design

The main dependent measure was the percentage of accurate sequences. A correct

sequence was defined as arranging each of the four pictures from left to right, in the order

dictated or shown by the experimenter. Additional dependent measures included, the

percentage of independent echoics, tacts, and the number of trials to criteria during

training. A correct echoic response was defined as rehearsing with point-to-point

correspondence (Skinner, 1957) a vocal sample (e.g., saying “Boon” when the

experimenter said “Boon”), while accurate tacts were defined as vocalizing the name of

the visual stimulus presented (e.g., saying “Boon” when presented with the picture

assigned the name “boon”).

15

A non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participants (Watson &

Workman, 1981) was used to show the effects of echoic and tact training, and control for

the potential confound of repeated pre exposure to the sequencing tests. A reversal

(ABABA) design (Hersen & Barlow, 1976) was used during sequencing tasks to further

demonstrate the effects of the blocking procedures (see below).

Table 2

Order and Set Assignment for Experimental Conditions in Experiment 1.

Participant 1 and 2 Participants 3 and 4

1. Sequencing Test 2. Echoic Training 3. Vocal Tact Training 4. Sequencing Test 5. Echoic Joint Control Training

(if needed) 6. Sequencing Test (if needed) 7. Vocal Blocking Test 8. Sequencing Test 9. Vocal Blocking Test 10. Sequencing Test

1. Sequencing Test 2. Echoic Training 3. Vocal Tact Training 4. Sequencing Test 5. Echoic Joint Control Training (if

needed) 6. Sequencing Test (if needed) 7. Vocal Blocking Test 8. Sequencing Test 9. Vocal Blocking Test 10. Sequencing Test

Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Integrity

A second observer independently recorded inter-observer agreement (IOA) data

during the experiment for all sessions. For each trial, an agreement was scored if both the

experimenter and the second observer scored each trial as correct, incorrect, or prompted

(as defined in Experimental Design and Dependent Measures). Point-by-point agreement

was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the sum of agreements and

disagreements and then multiplied by 100. Average IOA was as following: 100% (range,

16

100-100%) for P1, 99% (range, 95.8-100%) for P2, 100% (range, 100-100%) for P3, and

100% (range, 100-100%) for P4.

The second observer also assessed treatment integrity (TI) for all sessions. Data

were taken on whether each trial was correctly or incorrectly implemented. Correct

implementation consisted of presenting the correct auditory samples, the timing of

prompting (i.e., no delay) during the echoic, tact and joint control training trials, correct

sequences during sequencing and blocking test phases, and the outlined consequence for

correct and incorrect responses during training and testing trials. An incorrect

implementation was scored if any of the trial components were not executed correctly.

Treatment integrity was calculated by dividing the number of correctly implemented

trials by the total number of trials conducted by the experimenter. Average TI was as

following: 94.5% (range, 83.3-100%) for P1, 100% (range, 100-100%) for P2, 100%

(range, 100-100%) for P3, and 98.9% (range, 93.8-100%) for P4.

Procedure

All training conditions consisted of 8-trial blocks in which each sample (i.e.,

vocal sequence) was presented two times, in a randomized fashion with no two samples

presented consecutively. Testing conditions included five trial blocks, in which randomly

chosen sequences for each set were used as samples dictated by the experimenter. No

sequences were used during testing phases that had been presented in the previous six

training or testing conditions.

Sequencing Tests. The experimenter first said to the participant, “Please attempt

to put the pictures described in left to right order, and put your hands on your lap when

17

you are finished.” The experimenter then vocally stated a prearranged sample sequence

from the assigned set (i.e., A or B), and then placed the corresponding picture set upside

down in a randomly arranged pile in front of the participant. The participants then flipped

the picture set over, arranged them in left to right order, and put their hands in their laps

when finished. Correct or incorrect sequencing was followed by non-specific feedback

from the experimenter (i.e., “Thank you”) to indicate the completion of the trial. If

participants produced less than four out of five accurate sequences in any test after the

first sequencing test, an additional block of five trials was immediately implemented to

ensure they could not make accurate sequences with at least 80% accuracy.

Component Training. As in previous studies, the purpose of this phase was to

train the participants to engage in echoic and tact responses corresponding to each picture.

During echoic training, the participants were instructed to vocally imitate the names of

samples in the absence of any visual stimuli. Correct responses were followed with praise.

Incorrect responses were followed with a “No,” and representation of the instruction. The

criterion for completion of echoic training was one training block of eight trials without

errors.

During tact training the experimenter first said to the participant, “You will now

learn to say the names of the pictures.” The experimenter then held up one of the four

pictures from the assigned set at a time for the participant to vocally tact. Correct

responses were vocally prompted initially, upon the presentation of a stimulus (i.e., 0 s

delay). After participants correctly responded in 8 out 8 trials without errors, a constant

delay of 5 s to respond without prompting (i.e., vocal) was implemented. If an incorrect

18

response occurred, an error correction procedure was implemented in which the

experimenter would say, “No,” and repeat the trial with an immediate (i.e., 0 s delay)

vocal prompt requiring the participant to repeat the name. Correct responses were

followed with praise (e.g., “correct,” “that’s right,” etc.). The criterion for completion of

tact training was one block of eight trials without errors.

Joint Control Training. The purpose of this phase was to prompt the occurrence

of both the tact and echoic (i.e., rehearsal) behaviors necessary for joint control for any

set that did not result in at least 4 out of 5 correct responses (80%) for two sequencing

tests after component training. During joint control training, the experimenter told the

participant “Please repeat back what I say three times, then touch the picture on the table

and say it’s name.” Accurately rehearsing the vocal name, as well as touching and stating

the name of the stimulus, was required to be considered a correct response. Correct

touching and tacting of stimuli was initially prompted at a 0 s delay by modeling

touching the corresponding stimulus after the participant imitated the vocal name three

times, and saying its name. Correct responses were followed by praise. After participants

responded in 8 out 8 trials without errors for rehearsing, touching and tacting, a constant

delay of 5 s to respond without prompting (i.e., to point and tact) was implemented. Any

errors resulted in the experimenter saying “No,” rehearsing the instructions, and

providing the immediate prompts (i.e., 0 s delay) described above. The criterion for

termination of joint control training was one block of eight trials with independent and

accurate rehearsal, touching, and vocal tact responses without errors.

19

Vocal Blocking Tests. The purpose of this phase was to attempt to prevent any

verbal mediation (i.e., self-echoic and tact) that could account for the occurrence of joint

control. All steps from the sequencing test were repeated with one exception: The

experimenter first said to the participant, “When I point to you, immediately begin

singing Happy Birthday. I will then hand you a pile of cards to arrange in the order stated.

Please sign continuously while you are arranging the pictures, and place both your hands

in your lap when you are finished.” During vocal blocking tests with the use of a

metronome, the experimenter included the instruction to “sing to the pace of the

metronome.” Following 4 s of continuous singing, the experimenter put the picture sets in

front of the participant as done in sequencing tests. If the participants did not sing or

paused for longer than one second, the experimenter removed the stimuli, said “No,”

reinstated the instruction, and repeated the trial with a different sequence.

. Post-Experimental Interview. The experimenter asked the participants the

following questions. 1) Did you use any kind of strategies to learn the individual images

vocally or with hand signs? Please describe the method you used. 2) Did you use any

kind of strategies to sequence the images stated vocally or with hand signs? Please

describe the method you used. 3) Did you talk to your self about any of the images? This

could include stating the relationships of the images to one another, stating a rule related

to how you responded to the images, or repeating the sequences spoken to you. 4) Please

describe any methods or specific strategies you used.

20

Results and Discussion

Figure 2 depicts data on percentage of accurate arrangements during sequencing

and vocal blocking tests across participants. All participants performed below chance

level (range 0%-20%) during the sequencing pre-tests for both sets. Table 3 depicts the

trials to criterion for each participant to achieve mastery for echoic, tact, and, when

necessary, joint control training. Three of the four participants (P1, P2, P4) met mastery

criteria for echoic responding in one trial block while the fourth (P3) required one

additional trial block. Accurate tact responding was acquired in two blocks for P1 and P3,

four blocks for P4, and six blocks for P2. Following component training, three of the four

participants (P1, P3, and P4) accurately arranged the sets during sequencing training in at

least four out of five sequences, while P2 arranged the stimuli accurately in only three out

of five sequences. Participant 2 met mastery criterion for subsequent joint control training

in two training blocks, and then accurately arranged sequences in four out of five

sequencing test trials. All participants made accurate sequences during vocal blocking

tests, in one or less of the five trials. During reversals, all participants engaged in correct

sequencing in at least four out of five trials.

In the post-experimental interview, all participants (P1-4) reported to repeat the

names of the sequences dictated by the experimenter, and to have difficulty using this

strategy while singing “Happy Birthday” during the vocal blocking procedures. For

example, P3 said “ I had a hard time repeating the sequence when I was singing,” while

P4 said, “I forgot the order when I was singing.” Deteriorated performance across

participants during vocal blocking tasks and reports of covert rehearsal are consistent

21

with the notion that the self-echoic component of joint seemed to be necessary for

engaging in novel or untrained relations (Lowenkron, 2004).

Results from Experiment 1 showed that P1, P3, and P4 consistently made accurate

arrangements of four unfamiliar pictures, after echoic and tact training. Since accurate

arrangements were made for these participants, joint control training was not necessary.

Participant P2 did make at least four out of five accurate sequences after echoic and tact

training (i.e., only arranged accurately in three out of four trials) in two consecutive

sequencing tests. After joint control training (i.e., rehearse individual names and then

vocally tact pictures), four out of five accurate arrangements were made. However, it is

possible that additional tact training, or repeated exposure to sequencing tasks could have

produced similar results. All participants passed sequencing tests for each participant

thereafter, but made one or less accurate arrangements during two vocal blocking test

phases done between each sequencing test phase.

One limitation of Experiment 1 is that we only assessed sequencing in response to

one type of instruction, (i.e., vocal). Previous studies have investigated the role of joint

control using hand signs (Lowenkron, 1988; Tu, 2006), but none of these studies have

tested sequencing stimuli using signed instructions after participants learned to imitate

and tact pictures using hand signs. Also. Previous research did not attempt to block the

emission of hand signs as a form of mediation. Thus, it is not clear whether participants

did use hand signs as a form of mediation in previous studies (Causin, et at, 2013;

Lowenkron, 1988; Tu, 2006). In addition, previous research has not determined if

22

blocking procedures prevented mediating behavior or just interfered with task

performance.

Hence, the purpose of Experiment 2 was to determine if topography specific (i.e.,

vocal and hand sign) blocking procedures would influence sequencing random

arrangements of stimuli trained using vocal and hand signs. In order to test for these

effects, two sets of stimuli were assigned to different training conditions for each

participant. One set was taught and tested using the previously used vocal procedures,

while another set was taught and tested using hand signs. Gutierrez (2006) required

participants to use a metronome to ensure blocking tasks were used consistently and

without pausing to rehearse sequence orders. Therefore, a metronome was used for the

first four participants (P5, P6, P7, and P8) to ensure they engaged in blocking tasks

consistently. To control for the possibility that metronome was influencing performance,

it was not used for P9, P10, P11, and P12.

Table 3

Number of Trial Blocks Required to Reach Mastery Criterion for Echoic, Vocal Tact,

Joint Control Training.

Echoic Training Blocks Vocal Tact Blocks Joint Control Training Blocks

P1 1 2 N/A

P2 1 6 2

P3 2 2 N/A

P4 1 4 N/A

23

Figure 2. Percentages of correct sequences (closed triangles) of Participants 1, 2, 3, and 4 across each sequencing and blocking phase during Experiment 1.

24

Chapter 3

EXPERIMENT 2

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants were eight female undergraduate psychology students (P5-P12),

between the ages of 21 and 33, recruited from CSUS based on their unfamiliarity with

any form of sign language. Sessions were conducted at the Verbal Behavior Laboratory

on campus. Each student participated in one session lasting between 1 hour and 2 hours.

Materials

Materials were identical to those used in Experiment 1. Each set was randomly

assigned to either vocal, or hand sign procedures. The order of the vocal and hand sign

procedures was randomly assigned and counterbalanced across two pairs of participants,

with each training/training condition alternating after the completion of its counterpart.

These alterations occurred in a fixed order to ensure that no training procedure type

would have additional training trials or more recent training, when sequencing tests

occurred. The order of the conditions is listed in Table 4.

Dependent Measures and Experimental Design

A non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participants was used as in

Experiment 1. A multi-element design was also used to teach the specific topographies

(i.e., vocal or hand sign) assigned to each set during training. Lastly, a reversal (ABACA

or ACABA) design was used after training in which A was sequencing with no blocking,

25

B was sequencing with vocal blocking, and C was sequencing with hand sign blocking, to

demonstrate the influence of topography specific blocking procedures (see below).

Interobserver agreement (IOA) and treatment integrity (TI) data were also

collected as described in Experiment 1. Average IOA was as following: 100% (range,

100-100%) for P5, 100% (range, 100-100%) for P6, 99.3% (range, 92.3-100%) for P7,

100% (range, 100-100%) for P8, 100% (range, 100-100%) for P9, 100% (range, 100-

100%) for P10, 100% (range, 100-100%) for P11, and 97.8% (range, 80-100%) for P12.

Average TI was as following: 99% (range, 91.7-100%) for P5, 98.5% (range, 91.4-100%)

for P6, 97.9% (range, 84.6-100%) for P7, 99.5% (range, 97.9-100%) for P8, 99.4%

(range, 87.5-100%) for P9, 98.6% (range, 80-100%) for P10, 99.2% (range, 87.5-100%)

for P11, and 99.3% (range, 80-100%) for P12.

26

Table 4

Order and Set Assignment for Experimental Conditions in Experiment 2.

Participant 5, 6, 9, and 10 Set A Vocal and Set B Hand Sign

Participants 7, 8, 11, and 12 Set A Hand sign and Set B Vocal

1. Sequencing Test- Vocal 2. Sequencing Test- Hand Sign 3. Echoic Training 4. Mimetic Training 5. Vocal Tact Training 6. Hand sign Tact Training 7. Sequencing Test-Vocal 8. Sequencing Test- Hand Sign 9. Vocal Joint Control Training 10. Hand Sign Joint Control Training 11. Vocal Blocking Test 12. Vocal Blocking Test 13. Sequencing Test-Vocal 14. Sequencing Test-Hand Sign 15. Hand sign Blocking Test- Vocal 16. Hand Sign Blocking- Hand Sign 17. Sequencing Test-Vocal 18. Sequencing Test- Hand Sign

1. Sequencing Test-Hand Sign 2. Sequencing Test-Vocal 3. Mimetic Training 4. Echoic Training 5. Hand Sign Tact Training 6. Vocal Tact Training 7. Sequencing Test- Hand Sign 8. Sequencing Test-Vocal 9. Hand Sign Joint Control Training 10. Vocal Joint Control Training 11. Hand sign Blocking Test-Hand Sign 12. Hand Sign Blocking Test-Vocal 13. Sequencing Test-Hand Sign 14. Sequencing Test-Vocal 15. Vocal Blocking Test-Hand Sign 16. Vocal Blocking Test-Vocal 17. Sequencing Test- Hand Sign 18. Sequencing Test-Vocal

Procedures

We exposed participants to the conditions as summarized in Table 5. All training

and testing conditions for sets taught with vocal procedures were identical to those used

in Experiment 1. Training and testing conditions for sets taught using hand sign

procedures are described below. Training blocks for each set were alternated until

mastery was achieved for either echoic or mimetic and vocal or motor/signed tacting (see

below). Next, we presented sequencing tests for each set. Each participant was then

exposed to one of two types of topography blocking procedures, vocal blocking and hand

27

sign blocking, followed by a return to sequencing tests. Lastly, we required the

participants to engage in the blocking test not yet done (i.e., vocal if hand signs was done

previously, or hand signs if vocal was not done previously), and then an additional

sequencing test. The order of blocking test types was counterbalanced across two pairs of

participants. Participants 5-8 were required to engage in the blocking tasks at the same

pace as an audible metronome. A metronome was not used during blocking tests for P9.

P10, P11, and P12. The experimenter conducted a post-experimental interview as

described in Experiment 1.

Hand Sign Sequencing Tests. The experimenter first said to the participant,

“Please attempt to put the pictures described in left to right order, and put your hands on

your lap when you are finished.” The experimenter then signed a prearranged sample

sequence from the assigned set (i.e., A or B), and then placed the corresponding picture

set upside down in a randomly arranged pile in front of the participant. The participants

then flipped the picture set over, arranged them in left to right order, and put their hands

in their laps when finished. Correct or incorrect sequencing was followed by non-specific

feedback from the experimenter (i.e., “Thank you”) to indicate the completion of the trial.

If participants produced less than four out of five accurate sequences in any test after the

first hand sign sequencing test, an additional block of five trials was immediately

implemented to ensure they could not make accurate sequences with at least 80%

accuracy.

Hand Sign Component Training. Participants were taught to engage in mimetic

and hand sign tact responses corresponding to assigned sets. During mimetic training, the

28

participants were instructed to imitate the hand signs in the absence of any visual stimuli.

Correct responses were followed with praise. Incorrect responses were followed with a

“No,” and representation of the instruction. The criterion for completion of mimetic

training was one training block of eight trials without errors.

During hand sign tact training the experimenter first said to the participant, “You

will now learn to sign the names of the pictures.” The experimenter then held up one of

the four pictures from the assigned set at a time for the participant to hand sign tact.

Correct responses were modeled initially by the experimenter, upon the presentation of a

stimulus (i.e., 0 s delay). After participants correctly responded in 8 out 8 trials without

errors, a constant delay of 5 s to respond without prompting (i.e., model) was

implemented. If an incorrect response occurred, an error correction procedure was

implemented in which the experimenter would say, “No,” and repeat the trial with an

immediate (i.e., 0 s delay) model prompt requiring the participant to imitate the sign.

Correct responses were followed with praise (e.g., “correct,” “that’s right,” etc.). The

criterion for completion of hand sign tact training was one block of eight trials without

errors.

Hand Sign Joint Control Training. During joint control training, the

experimenter told the participant “Please repeat back what I say sign times, then touch

the picture on the table and say it’s name.” Accurately imitating the hand sign, as well as

touching and signing the name of the stimulus, was required to be considered a correct

response. Correct touching and tacting stimuli with hand signs was initially prompted at a

0 s delay by modeling touching the corresponding stimulus after the participant imitated

29

the hand sign three times, and signing its name. Correct responses were followed by

praise. After participants responded in 8 out 8 trials without errors for rehearsing,

touching and hand sign tacting, a constant delay of 5 s to respond without prompting (i.e.,

to point and tact) was implemented. Any errors resulted in the experimenter saying “No,”

rehearsing the instructions, and providing the immediate prompts (i.e., 0 s delay)

described above. The criterion for termination of hand sign joint control training was one

block of eight trials with independent and accurate rehearsal, touching, and hand sign tact

responses without errors.

Hand Sign blocking Tests. All steps from the hand sign sequencing test was

repeated with one exception: The experimenter first said to the participant, “When I point

to you, immediately begin tapping one hand on the table. I will then hand you a pile of

cards to arrange in the order stated. Please tap continuously while you are arranging the

pictures, and place both your hands in your lap when you are finished.” During hand sign

blocking tests with the use of a metronome, the experimenter included the instruction to

“tap to the pace of the metronome.” Following 4 s of continuous tapping, the

experimenter put the picture sets in front of the participant as done in previous

sequencing tests. If the participants did not tap or paused for longer than one second, the

experimenter removed the stimuli, said “No,” and repeated the trial with a different

sequence.

30

Results and Discussion

Figure 3 depicts the percentage of accurate arrangements during sequencing tests,

as well as vocal blocking and hand sign blocking tests that included the use of an audible

metronome for P5-P8. All participants performed at or below 20% accuracy during the

sequencing pre-tests for both sets. Table 5 depicts the trials to criterion for each

participant to achieve mastery for echoic, vocal tact, joint control training (if necessary),

mimetic, hand sign tact, and hand sign joint control training. All of the participants met

mastery criterion for echoic responding in one trial block. The majority of participants

also met mastery criterion for mimetic responding in one training block, besides P8, who

required two blocks. Accurate vocal tact responding was acquired in three blocks for two

participants (P5, and P7), four blocks for P6, and five blocks for P8. Hand sign tacts were

acquired in three blocks for three participants (P5, P6, and P7), and four blocks for P8.

P5, P6, P7, and P8 accurately arranged the set taught using vocal procedures in at

least four out of five trials during the second sequencing test, but only two of the

participants (P5, and P8) accurately arranged the set taught using hand sign procedures,

while P6 arranged the set using hand sign procedures in two out of five trials, and P7 in

three out of trials. Due to low scores by P6 and P7, hand sign joint control training was

implemented. Both participants met mastery criteria in two blocks, and then accurately

arranged sequences for both sets in at least four out of five sequencing test trials.

When the experimenter instructed participants to sing to the pace of an audible

metronome (i.e., vocal blocking), all participants (P5, P6, P7, and P8) performed below

80%, regardless of whether sequences were dictated or signed by the experimenter, or the

31

condition order (i.e., vocal blocking presented before or after hand sign blocking). When

instructed to tap to the pace of an audible metronome (i.e., hand sign blocking), P5 and

P6 made one or fewer errors for the set taught vocally, but only arranged the two of the

five sequences accurately for the set taught with hand signs. Participant 7 and 8 both

made three or fewer accurate arrangements for both sets. P5, P7, and P8 made accurate

arrangements in at least four out of five trials for both sets in a final sequencing test.

However, P6 failed to arrange the sequences in four out of five trials, for two consecutive

sequencing tests with the set taught vocally, but responded correctly in five out of five

trials for the set taught with hand signs. In order to address the potential fatigue, the

experimenter provided a short break (i.e., 10 minutes). Upon returning, P6 accurately

arranged the sequences in five out of five trials.

Due to inconsistent results during hand sign blocking tests and the possibility that

the sound of the metronome could have been responsible for lowered sequencing

accuracy during both blocking test types, this device was not used during blocking

procedures for the next four participants (P9, P10, P11, and P12). Figure 4 depicts these

percentages for those participants not exposed to the metronome. These participants (P9,

P10, P11, and P12) performed at or below 20% accuracy during the sequencing pre-tests

for both sets. Table 7 depicts the trials to criterion for each participant to achieve mastery

for echoic, vocal tact, joint control training (if necessary), mimetic, hand sign tact, and

hand sign joint control training. All of the participants (P9, P10, P11, and P12) met

mastery criterion for echoic and mimetic responding in one trial block, and vocal tact

32

responding in three blocks. Hand sign tacts were acquired in three blocks for three

participants (P9, P11, and P12), and two blocks for P10.

All of the participants (P9, P10, P11, and P12) then accurately arranged the set

taught using vocal procedures in five out of five trials during the second sequencing test,

and three of the participants (P10, P11, and P12) accurately arranged the set taught using

hand sign procedures in at least four out of five trials. P9 arranged the set using hand sign

procedures in three out of five trials, and was therefore exposed to hand sign joint control

training. P9 met mastery criteria for joint control training in two blocks, and then

accurately arranged sequences for both sets in at least four out of five sequencing test

trials. All participants (P9, P10, P11, and P12) accurately arranged sequences during all

sequencing tests presented thereafter for both sets of stimuli.

In the post-experimental interview, all participants (P5-12) reported to repeat the

names of the sequences presented, and to have difficulty using this strategy during vocal

blocking tests. For example, P7 said “Thinking about the lyrics made names of the

sequences get lost,” while P5 said “I tried to remember the first one or two during

singing.” Interestingly, all of the participants rehearsed hand signs as taught, during any

of the sequencing or blocking tests. According to all of the participants, all of the stimuli

assigned to hand signs were given names based upon features, and rehearsed instead of

the signs. For example, P9 called B1 “pinky,” B2 “ball,” B3 “peace,” and B4 “vagina.”

Upon seeing the signs for these stimuli in this order during sequencing testing, this

participant would say to herself “two, fist, L, c,” while arranging the stimuli. In the post-

experimental interview, each participant again reported to have difficulty rehearsing

33

sequences spoken, to have assigned vocal names to signs, and had difficulty rehearsing

these during vocal blocking tests. For example, P9 said she could only remember the first

name during vocal blocking tests. No participant reported any difficulties in using

rehearsal during hand sign blocking tests without the metronome.

In summary, all stimuli taught using vocal procedures and five of eight stimuli

taught using hand sign procedures produced accurate sequencing after training. Vocal

blocking tests again produced consistent poor performance as seen in Gutierrez (2006),

and DeGraaf & Schlinger (2012), but motor blocking did not result in deteriorated

sequencing performance for any of the participants without the use of the metronome.

These results support the notion that the audible metronome was interfering with covert

rehearsal for the first four participants, and that accurate sequencing was possible during

hand sign blocking tasks for the final four participants because tapping did not interfere

with covert vocal-verbal mediation.

Although these findings provide support for role of the self-echoic, they did not

provide any specific evidence that arranging sequences based on verbal instructions

requires verbal mediation, since vocal blocking procedures interfered with sequencing

tasks presented using vocal, as well as hand sign procedures. It is possible that the task

was a distractor and only interfered with sequencing, but was not preventing verbal

mediation. In order to determine if vocal blocking procedures are not merely distractors,

we designed a sequencing test that can be completed without any mediation, namely a

visual matching task. Thus, in Experiment 3, one set of stimuli was assigned to visual

matching procedures while the other set was assigned to vocal procedures. If vocal

34

blocking serves solely as a distractor interfering with task performance, then performance

should deteriorate for both sets.

Table 5

Number of Trial Blocks Required to Reach Mastery Criterion for Echoic, Vocal Tact,

Joint Control, Mimetic, Hand Sign Tact, and Hand Sign Joint Control Training.

Echoic Training

Vocal Tact

Training

Joint Control Training

Mimetic Training Blocks

Hand Sign Tact

Blocks

Hand Sign Joint Control Training

P5 1 3 N/A 1 3 N/A

P6 1 4 N/A 1 3 2

P7 1 3 N/A 1 3 2

P8 1 5 N/A 2 4 N/A

P9 1 3 N/A 1 3 2

P10 1 3 N/A 1 2 N/A

P11 1 3 N/A 1 3 N/A

P12 1 3 N/A 1 3 N/A

35

Figure 3. Percentages of correct sequences for sets using vocal (open squares) and signing procedures (closed triangles), across each sequencing and blocking phase during Experiment 2, for Participants 5, 6, 7, and 8, with the use of an audible metronome.

36

Figure 4. Percentages of correct sequences for sets using vocal (open squares) and signing procedures (closed triangles), across each sequencing and blocking phase during Experiment 2, for Participants 9, 10, 11, and 12, without the use of an audible metronome.

37

Chapter 4

EXPERIMENT 3

Method Participants and Setting

As in the previous experiments, participants were four undergraduate psychology

students (two females and two males, ages 21-29) recruited from CSUS. Sessions

occurred in the Verbal Behavior Laboratory at CSUS and each student participated in one

session lasting between 1 and 1.5 hours.

Materials

Materials were identical to those used in Experiments 1 and 2. Each stimulus set

was randomly assigned to either vocal, or matching procedures. The order of the vocal

and matching procedures was randomly assigned and counterbalanced across two pairs of

participants. The order of the conditions is listed in Table 6.

Dependent Measures and Experimental Design

We used a non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participants, multi-

element design and reversal (ABABA) design. Interobserver agreement (IOA) and

treatment integrity (TI) data were also collected as described in Experiment 1. Average

IOA was as following: 100% (range, 100-100%) for P13, 100% (range, 100-100%) for

P14, 100% (range, 100-100%) for P15, and 100% (range, 100-100%) for P16. Average

TI was as following: 100% (range, 100-100%) for P13, 96.5% (range, 87.5-100%) for

P14, 100% (range, 100-100%) for P15, and 100% (range, 100-100%) for P16.

38

Table 6

Order and Set Assignment for Experimental Conditions in Experiment 3.

Participant 13 and 14 Set A Visual Matching and Set B Vocal

Participants 15 and 16 Set A Vocal and Set B Visual Matching

1. Sequencing Test 2. Visual Matching Test 3. Echoic Training 4. Vocal Tact Training 5. Sequencing Test- Vocal 6. Sequencing Test- Visual Matching 7. Vocal Joint Control Training (if

needed) 8. Sequencing Test- Vocal (if

needed) 9. Sequencing Test- Visual Matching

(if needed) 10. Vocal Blocking Test 11. Sequencing Test- Vocal 12. Sequencing Test- Visual Matching 13. Vocal Blocking Test 14. Sequencing Test- Vocal 15. Sequencing Test- Visual Matching

1. Sequencing Test- Visual Matching 2. Sequencing Test- Vocal 3. Echoic Training 4. Vocal Tact Training 5. Sequencing Test- Visual Matching 6. Sequencing Test- Vocal 7. Vocal Joint Control Training (if

needed) 8. Sequencing Test- Visual Matching

(if needed) 9. Sequencing Test- Vocal (if needed) 10. Vocal Blocking Test 11. Sequencing Test- Visual Matching 12. Sequencing Test- Vocal 13. Vocal Blocking Test 14. Sequencing Test- Visual Matching 15. Sequencing Test- Vocal

Procedures

We exposed participants to the conditions as summarized in Table 6. All training

and testing conditions for sets taught with vocal procedures were identical to those used

in Experiment 1. Testing conditions for sets assigned to matching procedures are

described below. Sequencing tests were evaluated for each set, following component

training. Each set was then exposed to vocal blocking procedures followed by a return to

sequencing tests, an additional vocal blocking, and one final sequencing test. The

experimenter conducted a post-experimental interview as described in Experiment 1.

39

Visual Matching Sequencing Tests All procedures used for matching

sequencing tests were identical to those used for vocal sequencing tests except the

sequences were displayed in front of the participant during each trial. We first said to the

participant, “Please attempt to put the pictures in the order you see, in left to right order,

and put your hands on your lap when you are finished.” The experimenter then put each

picture in a random sequence, from left to right, according to the previously used

prearranged sample sequence procedures from Experiment 1. An identical corresponding

picture set was then placed in front of the participant, upside down in a randomly

arranged pile.

Results and Discussion

Figure 5 depicts data on percentage of accurate arrangements during sequencing

and vocal blocking tests for P13, P14, P15, and P16. All participants performed below

chance level (range 0%-20%) during the sequencing pretests for the set assigned to vocal

procedures, but as expected did not make any errors for the sets whose sample sequences

were displayed (i.e., visual matching sequences). Table 7 depicts the trials to criterion for

each participant to achieve mastery for the set assigned to vocal procedures. Three of the

four participants (P13, P14, and P16) met mastery criterion for echoic responding in one

trial block, while P14 required two blocks. Accurate vocal tacts were acquired in two

blocks for P14 and P16, and three blocks for P13 and P14.

Following component training, all of the participants accurately arranged the sets

during sequencing testing in at least four out of five sequences. Since all participants

accurately arranged sequences taught vocally in the subsequent sequencing test, joint

40

control training was not necessary. During the first vocal blocking test, all of the

participants failed sequence accurately in four out of five trials for the set instructed using

vocal procedures. Each of the participants then correctly arranged the sequences

instructed using visual matching procedures, in at least four out of five trials. In the

subsequent sequencing test, all participants arranged both sets during in at least four out

of five trials. A return to vocal blocking procedures resulted in two accurate sequences

for P1, three for P2, and one for P3 and P4. No errors were made by any of the

participants, for either set, in the final sequencing test for any of the participants.

As in Experiment 1 and 2, all participants reported in the post-experimental

interview to repeat the sequences spoken by the experimenter to herself, during

sequencing tests. In addition, each participant also reported to have difficulty in using this

strategy during vocal blocking tests. All participants did not report any difficulty

sequencing stimuli during the sequencing tests for the set assigned to visual matching

procedures.

The results from Experiment 3 showed that joint control training was not

necessary for any of the participants to accurately arrange sequences spoken by the

experimenter during sequencing tests. This finding parallels results in Experiment 1 and 2,

suggesting that rehearsal was again either unnecessary for both sets or that the

participants engaged in some form of covert rehearsal without direct training. According

to each participant, sequences spoken were rehearsed covertly as reported in Experiment

1 and 2 as well. Data collected during vocal blocking tests support the notion that some

form of verbal mediation was being used to arrange stimuli in the correct orders spoken,

41

as sequencing performance taught vocally deteriorated for each participants when they

were required to sing while making arrangements.

In order to demonstrate the effects of vocal blocking on sequencing tasks,

Experiment 3 included the use of a sequencing task that was not verbal control (i.e.,

visual matching sequencing tests). Data indicate that accurate sequencing performance

occurred without prior training for the sets using visual matching procedures, and did not

deteriorate during vocal blocking procedures. This manipulation further supports the role

of verbal mediation, since performance only deteriorated during vocal blocking tests for

those stimuli that were instructed with verbal behavior.

Table 7

Number of Trial Blocks Required to Reach Mastery Criterion for Echoic, and

Vocal Tact Training.

Echoic Training

Blocks

Vocal Tact Blocks

P1 1 3

P2 2 3

P3 1 2

P4 1 2

42

Figure 5. Percentages of correct sequences for sets using vocal procedures (open squares) and sequence matching (closed triangles), across each sequencing and blocking phase during Experiment 3, for Participants 13, 14, 15, and 16.

43

Chapter 5

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The current study evaluated the effects of topography specific and non-specific

blocking procedures on sequencing random arrangements of arbitrary stimuli, and

assessed the necessity for joint control training with typically developing adult

participants. Previous studies have found that novel sequencing performances improve

after training participants to rehearse dictated sequences in the midst of arranging stimuli

(DeGraaf & Schlinger, 2012), and joint tact-echoic stimulus control was important for

accurate sequencing (Gutierrez, 2006). Our results indicate that only one participant

across Experiment 1, 2, and 3 did not make accurate arrangements of sequences after

echoic and vocal tact training, and less than half did not do so following mimetic and

hand sign training in Experiment 2. This seems to indicate that either rehearsal was not

needed for most of the participants to accurately arrange the random sequences of stimuli,

or that joint control mediation was occurring without training. According to post-

experimental interview data, all participants reported to covertly rehearse the sequences

spoken by the experimenter, or covertly tact hand signs with vocal names and rehearse

these tacts, while arranging the stimuli.

In Experiment 1, 2, and 3 blocking conditions were included between sequencing

tests in a reversal design, to analyze the role of verbal mediation during sequencing tasks.

In each of these experiments, all participants failed to reach passing criteria when

required to simultaneously sing “Happy Birthday” (i.e., vocal blocking procedures), for

44

sets taught using vocal procedures. However, vocal-blocking procedures also appeared to

interfere with sequencing performance for those sets learned using hand signs in

Experiment 2. Based upon post-experimental interviews, participants assigned names to

all stimuli, including the ones taught using hand signs and reported having rehearsed

these names covertly. This suggests that vocal verbal mediation was being used to

sequence both sets, and this is why vocal blocking tasks deteriorated performance across

both sets.

It has been suggested that verbal mediation may not be necessary for such tasks,

and blocking procedures could serve merely as distractors rather than inhibitors of verbal

mediation (Palmer, 2006). This idea is supported by the results obtained for the first four

participants in Experiment 2, since each failed to pass during hand sign blocking tests

(i.e., hand tapping) for sets learned through hand signs, as well as for those learned

through vocal procedures. If hand signs were used as mediating responses, poor

sequencing during hand sign blocking could explain poor performance, but this does not

explain why sets learned through vocal procedures would also be affected. Similarly, it

was also unclear why performance would deteriorate for hand sign sets during these hand

sign blocking tests, if sub-vocal verbal mediation was being used as described by the

participants. One explanation for these results is that the audible metronome, used to

ensure participants would consistently engage in blocking procedure tasks (i.e., sing or

tap), could have disrupted performance. Therefore, for the next four participants, the

metronome was not used.

45

Following the removal of the metronome during both vocal and hand sign

blocking procedures, vocal blocking procedures again produced poor sequencing

accuracy across both sets, but hand sign blocking procedures no longer produced

deteriorated performance. These results are consistent with previous literature using

blocking procedures (Gutierrez, 2006; DeGraaf & Schlinger, 2012) in that those

participants, who demonstrated accurate sequencing, produced lower accuracy when

required to engage in tasks that required simultaneous verbal behavior. This finding also

appears to support the anecdotal reports of the participants; since participants reported

that vocal blocking procedures constrained their ability to rehearse experimenter or

participant assigned vocal names. Taken together with the significant improvement

during hand sign blocking procedures without the use of the metronome, it is likely that

the metronome was a distractor during blocking procedures. However, since vocal

blocking procedures continued to inhibit performance without the use of the metronome,

it is unlikely that vocal blocking served merely as a distraction, and thus were in fact

blocking covert verbal mediation during the sequencing tasks.

In Experiment 3, hand sign procedures were removed as performance was

affected similarly to those sets assigned to vocal procedures. Instead, one set was

randomly assigned to visual matching sequencing, a task that clearly does not require

verbal mediation. During these visual matching sequencing tests, participants would

arrange pictures according to the sequences they saw displayed on the table. As expected,

sequencing accuracy remained perfect across all sequencing and vocal blocking tests for

each participant, while accuracy deteriorated for the sets assigned to vocal procedures.

46

These results suggest that vocal blocking may have served to prevent covert mediation

and not be a distractor since the set assigned to vocal procedures was the only one

affected by the vocal blocking procedures. Comparing sequencing performance across

these two procedures helped demonstrate how verbal mediation was likely to be

responsible for those sets trained and tested vocally.

There were some methodological limitations that merit consideration. First, due to

potential confounds of maturation and exposure to sequencing and blocking tests, a

limited number of testing trials were presented, resulting in minimal differences between

pass and fail criterion. In addition, the experiment also included a low number (four) of

stimuli for participants to arrange. Although the stimuli were unfamiliar to the

participants, the disparity between performance during sequencing and blocking tasks

may have been clearer with additional trials utilizing more complex sequences. For

example, 10 trial testing blocks, in which participants are required to arrange seven

separate stimuli, could reduce the likelihood that participants would guess sequences

accurately or be able to arrange them while engaging in other verbal behavior. Thus,

future studies should require participants to engage in more complex sequencing tasks

across additional trials to control for this.

Second, though Experiment 3 provides preliminary evidence that sequencing

tasks are possible without the use verbal mediation, the behavior required during these

sequencing tests may have not been analogous. For the set assigned to visual matching,

participants could have looked at the sample and then selected one picture at a time,

while for the set taught vocally, participants arranged the stimuli after hearing the entire

47

dictated order. Future studies investigate the role of nonverbal strategies to engage in

complex tasks, and test performance when exposed to verbal mediation blocking

procedures. For example, visual strategies, such as first watching experimenters perform

a complex sequence of tasks prior to doing so, could be compared to tasks presented as

vocal instructions. If vocal blocking procedures affect vocal tasks presented but not

visual tasks then, the role of verbal mediation would be supported. For instance, one

could compare accuracy between first watching another follow all of the steps of simple

cooking recipe, and listening to vocal instructions.

Lastly, although this study investigated the role of verbal mediation, it is not clear

which verbal components (if any) were actually required, and how these components may

facilitate sequencing performance. This study focused on the joint control account, but it

is possible, that naming (Horne & Lowe, 1996) could have been responsible for

participants’ sequencing behavior. Naming is described as the bidirectional relation of an

individual responding as a listener to her own speaker behavior. This generalized operant

is composed of two primary components, the elementary verbal operant (i.e., an echoic,

tact, or intraverbal) and conventional (i.e., learned) listener behavior. Using the naming

account, once the experimenter dictated the sequences, the participants could have

echoed this response, the product of which could have served as a discriminative stimulus

(SD) to evoke selection (listener). Since all of these participants were likely to have a

naming repertoire (when they learn to tact a picture, its name automatically serve as an

SD for conventional listener behavior or orienting to other pictures), this explanation is

also plausible. This interpretation of verbal mediation differs from a joint control account,

48

which suggests that participants also need to tact comparison stimuli, during rehearsal, to

make accurate selections. Although the experiments used in this study were not designed

to evaluate the specific modalities of mediation, future studies should attempt to assess

whether tacting comparisons are necessary during sequencing tasks. If, for example,

tacting responses can be prevented after an experimenter presents sequences, and

participants make inaccurate selections, this finding would demonstrate the necessity of

tacting comparisons prior to making selections. However, if tacting can be prevented and

accurate selections still occur, a naming account for verbal mediation would be supported.

49

APPENDIX: Testing and Training Datasheets

50

51

52

References

Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning (4th ed.)..NY: Sloan.

Causin, K. G., Albert, K. M., Carbone, V. J., & Sweeney-Kerwin, E. J. (2013). The role

of joint control in teaching listener responding to children with autism and other

developmental disabilities. Research In Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 997-1011.

DeGraaf, A. (2012). The effect of joint control training on the acquisition and durability

of a sequencing task. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28, 59-71.

Gutierrez, R. D. (2006). The role of rehearsal in joint control. The Analysis of Verbal

Behavior, 22, 183-190.

Horne, J. & Lowe C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.

Horne, P.J., Lowe, C.F. & Harris, F.D.A. (2007). Naming and categorization in young

children: V. Manual sign training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

Behavior, 87, 367-381.

Horne, P.J., Hughes, J.C. & Lowe, C.F. (2006). Naming and categorization in young

children: IV: Listener behavior training and transfer of function. Journal of the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 247- 273.

Horne, P. J., Lowe, C. F., & Randle, V. R. L. (2004). Naming and categorization in

young children: II. Listener behavior training. Journal of Experimental Analysis

of Behavior, 81, 267-288.

Horner, R., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple

baseline. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189-196.

53

Kisamore, A. N., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2011). Training preschool children to use

visual imagining as a problem-solving strategy for complex categorization tasks.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(2), 255-278.

Kobari-Wright, V. V. and Miguel, C. F. (2014), The effects of listener training on the

emergence of categorization and speaker behavior in children with autism.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(2), 431-436.

Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., Harris, F. D. A., & Randle, V. R. L. (2002). Naming and

categorization in young children: Vocal tact training. Journal of the Experimental

Analysis of Behavior, 78, 527–249.

Lowenkron, B. (1984). Coding responses and the generalization of matching to sample in

children. Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 1-18.

Lowenkron, B. (1988). Generalization of delayed identity matching in retarded children.

Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 163-172.

Lowenkron, B. (1989). Instructional control of generalized relational matching to sample

in children. Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 293-309.

Lowenkron, B. (1991). Joint control and the generalization of selection-based verbal

behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 121-126.

Lowenkron, B., & Colvin, V. (1992). Joint control and generalized nonidentity matching:

Saying when something is not. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 10, 1-10.

Lowenkron, B., & Colvin, V. (1995). 'Generalized instructional control and the

production of broadly applicable relational responding': Erratum. The Analysis of

Verbal Behavior, 12, 13-29.

54

Lowenkron, B. (1998). Some logical functions of joint control. Journal of The

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 327-354.

Lowenkron, B. (2004). Meaning: A verbal behavior account. The Analysis of Verbal

Behavior, 20, 77-97.

Lowenkron, B. (2006a). An introduction to joint control. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,

22, 123-127.

Lowenkron, B. (2006b). Joint control and the selection of stimuli from their description.

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 129-151.

Mahoney, A. M., Miguel, C. F., Ahearn, W. H., & Bell, J. (2011). The role of common

motor responses in stimulus categorization by preschool children. Journal of The

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95(2), 237-262.

Miguel, C. F. and Kobari-Wright, V. V. (2013), The effects of tact training on the

emergence of

categorization and listener behavior in children with autism. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 46, 669–673.

Palmer, D. C. (2006). Joint control: A discussion of recent research. The Analysis of

Verbal Behavior, 22, 209-215.

Sidener, D. W., & Michael, J. (2006). Generalization of relational matching to sample in

children: A direct replication. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 171-181.

Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and

Hearing Research, 14, 5-13.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley.

55

Tu, J. C. (2006). The role of joint control in the manded selection responses of both vocal

and non-vocal children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 191-

207.

Watson, P. J., & Workman, E. A. (1981). The nonconcurrent multiple baseline across

individuals design: An extension of the traditional multiple baseline design.

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 12, 257–259.