The Psychological Record, 2013, 63, 1–10

Mimetic Relation as Matching-to-Sample Observing

Response and the Emergence of Speaker Relations in
Children With and Without Hearing Impairments
Nassim Chamel Elias and Celso Goyos
Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brasil

This study investigated the effect of matching-to-sample and mimetic-relations

teaching on the emergence of signed tact and textual repertoire through a
multiple-baseline design, across three groups of three words in children with
and without hearing impairments and with no reading repertoire. Following
mimetic-relations teaching and the establishment of nine three-member
stimulus classes containing signs, pictures, and printed words via matching-to-
sample procedure, including the mimetic relation as the differential observing
response, tact (signing in the presence of a picture) and textual (signing in the
presence of a printed word) emergent repertoires were tested. Results showed
the emergence of signed tact and textual responses. The mimetic relation
brought in under the contextual control of a matching-to-sample task may have
allowed participants to simultaneously learn speaker and listener relations to
the particular signs used.
Key words: verbal behavior, stimulus equivalence, mimetic relation, signed
tact, signed textual
A number of studies have shown that stimulus equivalence represents an efficient way
of teaching language to individuals with language delay and intellectual disabilities (i.e.,
Elias, Goyos, Saunders, & Saunders, 2008; Osborne & Gatch, 1989; Sidman, 1971; Sidman
& Cresson, 1973). Stimulus equivalence is experimentally demonstrated when an
individual, after being taught relations between members of three stimulus sets in one
direction (i.e., select B in the presence of A, and C in the presence of B), will select A in
the presence of B and B in the presence of C (symmetry) and C in the presence of A and A
in the presence of C (transitivity) without further teaching and will also select any stimulus
in the presence of its equal (i.e., A in the presence of A, B in the presence of B, etc.). As a
practical example, after being reinforced for selecting the picture of a cat and the printed
word cat, among other stimuli, upon hearing the spoken word /cat/, stimulus equivalence is
demonstrated when the individual matches the printed word cat to the picture of a cat and
vice-versa. This teaching can also yield saying /cat/ in the presence of both the picture of a

We acknowledge Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for general
continued support and for postdoctoral scholarship to the first author (process # 2008/04407-0), and
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) research scholarship to the
second author (process # 307771/2007). The authors are grateful to Daniela M. Ribeiro and Thomas
S. Higbee for comments, criticisms, and suggestions on previous versions of this manuscript.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Celso Goyos, Universidade
Federal de São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luís, km 235-SP-310, São Carlos, SP, Brasil, CEP
13565-905. E-mail: celsogoyos@hotmail.com
2 Elias and Goyos

cat and the printed word cat, although this latter emergent repertoire is not necessarily
predicted to occur according to stimulus equivalence interpretations (Stromer, Mackay, &
Stoddard, 1992).
Elias et al. (2008), for instance, used automated matching-to-sample tasks in a
procedure aimed at teaching relations among nine digital video clips presenting manual
signs and the corresponding pictures and printed words to seven adults with intellectual
disabilities (four of whom were hearing impaired). Pretests were presented to identify
signs the participants did not know. Then, they were taught relations among video clips
(Set A) and pictures (Set B) and relations among printed words (Set C) and pictures (Set B)
until a criterion of 100% of correct responses was reached. Next, they were tested for the
emergence of the conditional relations AC, followed by tests of signing in the presence of
the pictures (tact) and the printed words (textual); both test-type trials were not
experimentally followed by any specific reinforcer. Both the observing response and the
choice response on matching-to-sample (MTS) trials were touching the stimulus. A
multiple-baseline design across three groups of three words was applied. Results showed
the emergence of stimulus equivalence classes and also the emergence of correct signing
in the presence of pictures or printed words for five of the seven participants.
One of the participants in Elias et al.’s (2008) study, the one with the best performance
(fewer sessions to reach criterion during teaching and highest number of correct emergent
signs) systematically and spontaneously imitated the signs presented as samples on the
MTS tasks before choosing a comparison stimulus. Also, the other participants, who
showed more errors and therefore required more trials to meet criterion during teaching
and who showed fewer signs during testing, did not spontaneously sign in the presence of
the sample stimuli. According to Horne and Erjavec (2007), not all individuals have a
motor-imitative repertoire, and this skill may need to be directly taught. As to how
spontaneous imitation can be brought about, at least theoretically, it is believed that signing
in the presence of the sign would be introduced and maintained by the acquired reinforcer
value of the correspondence between seeing and signing (Greer & Speckman, 2009).
Such bidirectional correlation observed in the Elias et al. (2008) results may indicate
an already-established generalized imitation repertoire, meaning that this repertoire was
transferred to the context of the MTS tasks and that the imitative response, controlled by a
sign presented in a video clip, may have evoked the mimetic relation (Vargas, 1982). In the
taxonomy of verbal behavior proposed by Skinner (1957), a gestural verbal response that
has a point-to-point correspondence to an antecedent gestural verbal stimulus does not fit
any of the verbal operant definitions. Such relation is a special instance of motor imitation,
in which both antecedent and response are verbal. This special feature is encapsulated in
the definition of a mimetic response as proposed by Vargas (1982).
After mimetic relations have been established in the context of the signed sample
stimulus, response control may be transferred to the comparison stimuli. According to
Lowenkron (1998, 2004), in MTS trials, a given verbal sample stimulus evokes a given
verbal response (echoic, if vocal, or mimetic, if gestural) that is repeated (self-echoic or
self-mimetic), and then this later response enters into joint control with only one of the
comparison stimuli, the one that evokes the same verbal response topography being
repeated. This verbal mediation is given by matching two distinct but topographically
related verbal operants, typically an echoic or mimetic and a tact.
Teaching procedures derived of this interpretation, such as teaching individuals to
imitate the signs prior to introducing MTS trials, may have powerful outcomes and allow
participants to discriminate the signs successively, which is considered a prerequisite for
the establishment of conditional discrimination relations (Saunders & Green, 1999).
Considering the potential for applications, the objective of this study was to investigate
the effects of directly teaching mimetic responses (i.e., imitating a sign presented in a
video clip) prior to introducing MTS trials and then using the mimetic as the differential
observing response on an automated MTS procedure to establish stimulus classes
containing video clips, pictures, and printed words and to generate the emergence of
 MTS and Mimetic Relations in Stimulus Equivalence 3

untaught signed tact and textual responses. The effects of the procedure were assessed
using a multiple-baseline design across three groups of three words.

Method

Participants
Participants were five 5-year-old Brazilian children. Participants Gra and Mat were
profoundly deaf; Mat was deaf at birth, and Gra became deaf after having meningitis at the
age of 12 months. Participants Eve, Will, and Yan had normal hearing. The deaf
participants used general body and hand gestures to communicate, and Gra signed in the
presence of the alphabet letters. In preexperimental tests, all participants performed at
chance level in tests of relations between picture–printed word, and printed word–picture
(relations BC and CB, respectively), and presented no correct responses in relations
between printed word–sign (relation CA’). Also they reached 100% correct responses on
identity matching-to-sample, first with pictures and then with printed words.
Gra and Mat were selected because they were the only deaf children in the classroom.
The other children were selected because they were the oldest in the classroom. The
children also showed willingness to participate. Before the onset, the participants’ parents
were given a brief description of the study to read, the opportunity to ask questions, and a
consent form to sign, asserting their willingness to have their child participate. They were
also informed that their children could withdraw from the study at any time.

Setting and Materials

The sessions were held in a room at the participants’ school. A computer program
(Elias & Goyos, 2010) presented stimuli and consequences, and recorded teaching and
testing data as well as the participants’ responses. Signing tests were recorded by a digital
camcorder for interobserver agreement purposes. At the end of each workday, the
participants could play a computer game for their participation, regardless of their
performance. The number of sessions per day varied from two to five, depending on
availability of time.

Experimental Stimuli
Three stimulus sets (A, B, and C), with nine corresponding stimuli each, were defined.
Set A consisted of Brazilian Sign Language signs presented through video clips recorded
as a QuickTime color movie, made especially for the purposes of this study. Only one
trained model was used in the video clips. The model wore black, and the distance between
the camera and the model was kept constant through all video recordings. Each video clip
lasted about 10 s. Stimulus Set A video clips were always presented as sample in the MTS
and mimetic tasks, on a 7.0 × 7.0 cm window. Set B consisted of the pictures that
corresponded to the Set A video clips and were presented as 7.0 × 7.0 cm colored drawings.
Set C consisted of corresponding printed words presented in uppercase Arial font, in bold,
black, point size 30, typed against a white background (see Table 1). Words were chosen
considering that six words should be formed by two syllables and three words by three or
more syllables. Set A’ consisted of the participants’ signed responses.

Procedure
During pretests, each AB, AC, BC, and CB relation was presented three times in
separated 18-trial sessions. Each BA’ and CA’ relation was then presented once in two
separate 18-trial sessions. The participant’s lowest performance on the pretests was
considered to select nine video clips and their corresponding pictures and printed words
(see Table 2).
4 Elias and Goyos

Table 1
Set C Printed Words, Corresponding Set B Pictures, and Pictorial Representation of
Set A Video Clips
Printed Words Pictures Video Clip Printed Words Pictures Video Clip
(Set C) (Set B) (Set A) (Set C) (Set B) (Set A)

ENXADA MORANGO

FACA PATO

FOGO RATO

GALINHA RODA

GARRAFA SAPATO

GATO SOFÁ

JANELA VACA

MEIA VELA

Imitation teaching. The first training phase consisted of teaching the participants to
imitate each of the Group 1 signs—AA’. Each trial started with a Set A video clip stimulus
presented in the upper center portion of the monitor (sample stimulus position) and the
instruction to imitate the video clip. For Gra and Mat, signed instruction was presented; for
Eve, Will, and Yan, vocal instruction was presented. In both cases, the instruction was “Do
the same.” Correct signed responses were followed by the experimenter clicking on the
sample stimulus area of the computer screen and then again on a specific area of the
computer screen, a computer animation with verbal praise, a 2 s intertrial interval, and the
presentation of the next trial.
 MTS and Mimetic Relations in Stimulus Equivalence 5

Table 2
Individually Selected C Stimulus Sets With Portuguese Printed Words
Presented for Each Participant in Each of the Three Word Groups
Participants
Stimulus Eve Gra Mat Will Yan
Groups
FOGO FACA FOGO FOGO FACA
1 MEIA FOGO MEIA GATO FOGO
PATO RODA RATO MEIA GATO
RATO MEIA RODA RODA MEIA
2 RODA SOFÁ VACA SOFÁ RATO
VACA VELA PATO VELA VELA
GALINHA GALINHA ENXADA GALINHA GALINHA
3 JANELA JANELA GARRAFA JANELA JANELA
MORANGO SAPATO MORANGO MORANGO MORANGO

Incorrect signed responses—or any response, signed, oral, or otherwise–different

from the required response after 5 s were followed by the experimenter providing verbal
and nonverbal prompts. For the non-hearing-impaired children, the experimenter played
the video clip again and orally provided the instruction, “Do the same.” For the hearing
impaired children, the experimenter pointed to the computer, played the video clip again,
and signed the instruction “It is your turn. Do the same sign.” If the participant still did not
follow the instruction after an additional 5 s, the experimenter pointed to the computer,
played the video clip again, imitated the video clip himself, and signed “It is your turn. Do
the same sign.” The hierarchy of instruction was provided again in a new trial only if the
participant did not imitate the video clip after 5 s. Correct responses after prompting were
followed by an oral or signed “OK” provided by the experimenter, the experimenter clicking
on the sample stimulus area of the computer screen and then again on a specific area of the
computer screen, a blank screen on the monitor, and the presentation of the next trial.
Three trial blocks of A1 was successively presented until three consecutive correct A1’
responses were performed without prompting. Next, A2 and A3 signs imitation were conducted
with the same procedure. Finally, all three video clips were randomly presented three times
each in a nine-trial block until a criterion of 100% of correct sign imitation was reached.
Matching-to-sample sessions. Following the mastery of imitation of Group 1 signs,
MTS sessions were first introduced to teach relations AB for Group 1 stimuli. Each trial
started with the single presentation of a Set A video clip as sample stimulus in the upper
portion of the monitor and the instruction “Do the same” (auditory for the non–hearing
impaired children, and gestural for the hearing impaired children), so that the observing
response to the video clip was the mimetic relation. If the response was inaccurate, the
experimenter played the video clip again. After the mimetic response and the end of the
video clip, the experimenter clicked on the sample stimulus to produce the presentation of
three comparison stimuli (three pictures—one correct and two incorrect comparisons—
from the same stimulus group) below the sample position. Target responses were made by
the participant pointing to one comparison. The experimenter then clicked on the pointed
comparison before delivering the programmed consequences. Class-consistent choices to
the correct comparison were followed by a computer animation and a verbal praise.
Incorrect choices were followed only by a blank screen. All trials were followed by a 2-s
intertrial interval and the presentation of the next trial. A session consisted of a 12-trial
block with AB trial types randomly interspersed, providing that not more than two trials of
the same type were presented successively or more than two successive trials with the
correct comparison presented in the same position.
When a criterion of 100% of correct responses in a session or 90% in two consecutive
sessions was reached, relations AC for Group 1 video clips and printed words were taught
using procedure identical to AB teaching. Next, six trials of relations AB interspersed with
6 Elias and Goyos

six trials of relations AC, using procedure identical to AB teaching, were taught to criterion
in the same session for Group 1. Then, a test session with AB and AC interspersed with BC
and CB trials (three trials per relation) for the same group was introduced, with no
programmed consequences for all trials. Target responses in testing sessions were followed
by a 2-s intertrial interval and the presentation of the next trial. Mimetic responses were
required for relations AB and AC during test trials. The observing response on BC and CB
test trials was only the pointing response.
Tact and textual sessions. After meeting 100% of correct responses on the mixed
AB/AC/BC/CB test session, relations BA’ and CA’ were tested for all stimuli. Each trial
started with the presentation of a picture or a printed word in the sample stimulus position
and the instruction “Do the sign for this picture (or printed word),” vocally for the non–
hearing impaired children and signed for the hearing impaired children. A response was
recorded as correct if it matched its corresponding Set A stimulus and presented within 10
s from the stimulus onset. If the correct signed response was not presented within 10 s, or
a different response was shown, an incorrect response was recorded. Correct and incorrect
responses were followed only by a 2-s intertrial interval and the presentation of the next
trial. Each session had 18 trials; one block of nine trials with different pictures was
followed by one block of nine trials with different printed words. Within each block, the
trials were presented randomly. Teaching and testing sessions were then introduced for the
remaining groups of stimuli.
Experimental design. A multiple-baseline design across three groups of stimuli
controlled for the effects of the independent variables (AB and AC teaching, and the
emergence of derived relations BC and CB) on the dependent variable (correct responses
on emergent relations BA’ and CA’).
Interobserver agreement. During signing tests for relations BA’ and CA’, each sign
was analyzed as correct or incorrect by an independent observer. Agreement between
experimenter and the independent observer’s recordings was 100%, based upon a
comparison of trial-by-trial analysis.
Treatment integrity. All trials in all experimental phases were presented by a
computer program; therefore, no assessment was made.

Results and Discussion

Performance during pretests of relations AB, AC, BC, and CB is shown in Table 3. No
errors were presented during sign-imitation teaching. After showing mastery of sign
imitation, and after mastering AB and AC relations, participants met criterion and showed
100% of correct responses on the emergent relations BC and CB. Exceptions were found
for Eve (Group 1; 33% incorrect responses for both BC and CB), Gra (Group 2; 33%
incorrect responses only for BC), and Will (Group 3; 67% incorrect responses for both BC
and CB). After presenting one session of mixed AB/AC teaching relations, all three
participants reached criterion on relations BC/CB tests.
Table 3
Pretest Accuracy Score (Percentage Correct)
Participants
Relations Eve Gra Mat Will Yan
AB 52 81 39 37 54
AC 24 35 40 24 25
BC 44 39 41 43 30
CB 44 33 34 33 32

Learning relations AB (video clip–picture) to criterion required fewer trials than for
relation AC (video clip–printed word) for all stimulus groups and all participants (see
Table 4), in spite of AC relations being the second conditional discrimination relations
taught (Saunders & Spradlin, 1993).
 MTS and Mimetic Relations in Stimulus Equivalence 7

Table 4
Number of Trials to Reach Criterion
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Participants AB AC AB AC AB AC
Eve 12 48 12 84 12 36
Gra 12 132 12 144 12 72
Mat 24 72 12 132 12 84
Will 24 84 12 60 24 36
Yan 12 156 12 48 24 36

An additional modified matching-to-sample task presentation format (Saunders &

Spradlin, 1989) was introduced for AC relations in an attempt to promote comparison
discrimination and gradually introduce reversal of comparison discrimination. Sessions
consisted of 12 trials, with A1 being presented four times consecutively, followed by
four consecutive A2 trials, and four consecutive A3 trials, with C1, C2, and C3
comparison stimuli in different positions across trials. Criterion to move over to the next
phase allowed errors on only the very first trial after the sample stimulus was changed.
In the next phase, the number of blocks increased from three to six, halving the number
of trials in each block accordingly until 100% correct responses was reached, which was
followed by the presentation of the original session with randomly presented trials. The
same modified procedure was introduced, if required, to Groups 2 and 3 of words.
All participants showed the emergence of most signs when prompted by the presence
of the pictures and printed words (see Figure 1). In general, the total number of correct BA’
tact responses was considerably higher than correct CA’ textual responses (dark and white
bars on Figure 1, respectively), not only in immediate tests but also in maintenance tests.
As compared with immediate tests, maintenance tests showed a gradual decrement in both
tact and textual performance, with a slightly higher decrement for the textual performance.
Different emergent performances in textual and tact relations have also been found in
other studies (i.e., Elias et al., 2008; Osborne & Gatch, 1989; Sidman & Cresson, 1973,
among others).
What is challenging about these results is how to account for the difference in
performances in BA’ and CA’ once response topographies in both operants are similar, if
not identical—implying that response cost is at least comparable, the evocative stimuli
(picture or printed word) belong to the same experimentally established equivalence
classes, and both BA’ and CA’ relations were not experimentally followed by any specific
reinforcer. Maybe it is because being positive in the equivalence tests does not necessarily
mean the stimuli are equivalent in all other different conditions, or maybe stimuli in an
equivalence class are not equally related to each other (Fields & Moss, 2007). One
possibility is that if the reinforcer enters the equivalence class, as suggested by Sidman
(2000), and considering also that the two relations clearly have different histories—as
indicated by the well-known fact that children learn tact relations earlier than textual
relations—implying that several equivalence stimulus classes with pictures, objects and
their names are probably well established outside the experimental context before
expanding these classes to include letters, printed words, and their names. As an additional
result, tact and textual relations may have acquired two or more different reinforcing
values. How to control for these variables is an experimental objective well worth
pursuing. Tsai and Greer (2006) suggested that, for orally capable children, reinforcement
control for observing pictures may have been present, whereas reinforcement control for
observing printed words was absent. For their important theoretical and practical
implications, the differences between tact and textual performances still need to be
accounted for (Guimarães, 2012).
A major feature of this study seems to have been the mimetic teaching of a new
manual sign coupled with the MTS task. This feature was gradually introduced. First,
outside the MTS context, but still in the context of a computer task, the participants
8 Elias and Goyos

Eve Gra Mat

Group 1 100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 14 37 97 0 54 133 143 0 94 133 153
Group 2 100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 23 83 0 39 54 0 39 68
Percentage of Correct Responses

Group 3 100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 60 0 15 0 29

Will Yan
Group 1 100 100
BA
50 50 CA

0 0
0 91 111 120 0 78 92 106
Group 2 100 100

50 50

0 0
0 20 29 0 14 28
Group 3 100 100

50 50

0 0
0 9 0 14

Days After Reaching Criterion

Figure 1. The results are shown as percentage of correct responses for the five participants. To the
left of the dashed lines, which represent the introduction of the teaching conditions, the pretests
results for BA’ and CA’ responses are shown. To the right of the dashed lines, test results for each
participant on BA’ and CA’ responses are shown. The three different panels for each participant
show the results for stimulus Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Additionally, x-axis labels represent
the number of days between reaching teaching criterion and the application of the signing test.

learned to successively discriminate among the video clips, an important prerequisite

discrimination for matching-to-sample performance or the formation of stimulus classes.
Then, this feature was brought in under the contextual control of an MTS task, during
the AB and the AC teaching phases, because it was experimentally required. It may be
important to have this repertoire directly trained, as pointed out by Young, Krantz,
McClannahan, and Poulson (1994, p. 686), because “generalized imitation may be
restricted to the type of responses for which imitative behavior has been reinforced and
not to all responses modeled by the experimenter.”
If signing did occur or to which extent it occurred during BC and CB trials is still
unclear. Unsystematic observations indicated some signing on some BC and CB trials at
the onset of the sample stimulus presentation. Such responses were never followed by any
 MTS and Mimetic Relations in Stimulus Equivalence 9

specific experimentally defined consequences but the instruction to touch the sample
stimulus.
It is possible that during these experimental phases the participant was simultaneously
learning speaker-and-listener relations to those particular manual signs, which adds to the
other known economical features of the MTS general teaching procedure. These relations
may have benefitted from previously learned naming relations (Horne & Lowe, 1996)
regarding different response topographies for hearing and non-hearing participants.
Emergent speaker behavior (BA’ and CA’) may thus have been a function of all previous
relations combined.
Mimetic teaching may also be fundamental to teach relations in which the first
stimulus is a compound stimulus (a sequence of frames) and can replace the standard
pointing or touching observing response with advantages. For videos, such as in the
current study, touching or pointing does not ensure the observation of all stimulus
features, consisting of a dynamic and variable sequence of frames. Mimetic responding
as a mediating response on MTS trials may be an important component in the
emergence of new signing relations (Horne & Lowe, 1996; Lowenkron, 1998).
However, this feature needs further investigation by, for example, comparing the
results from this procedure with one that does not include the mimetic responding
during teaching phases.
The successful establishment of stimulus classes including video clips along with
pictures and printed words may be an important step for future studies to investigate the
use of videos to teach sequelic relations (Vargas, 1982) as in sentence construction and
grammar. The participant may tact the event in a video, such as subject, verb, and
complements, which may serve as a prompt for written, oral, or signed sentence
construction.

References
Elias, N. C., & Goyos, C. (2010). MestreLibras no ensino de sinais: Tarefas informatizadas
de escolha de acordo com o modelo e equivalência de estímulos [MestreLibras in
the teaching of sign language: Matching-to-sample computerized tasks and stimulus
equivalence]. In E. G. Mendes & M. A. Almeida. (Eds.), Das margens ao centro:
Perspectivas para as políticas e práticas educacionais no contexto da educação
especial inclusiva [From the margins to the centre: Perspectives for educational
policy and practice in the context of education], (pp. 223–234). Araraquara,
Brazil: Junqueira & Marin Editora e Comercial Ltda.
Elias, N. C., Goyos, C., Saunders, M., & Saunders, R. R. (2008). Teaching manual signs
to adults with mental retardation using matching-to-sample procedures and
stimulus equivalence. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24 (1), 1–13. PMCID:
PMC2779928.
Fields, L., & Moss, P. (2007). Stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes: Interaction of
nodality and contingency. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8(2), 141–159.
Greer, R. D., & Speckman, J. (2009). The integration of speaker and listener responses:
A theory of verbal development. The Psychological Record, 59(3), 449–488.
Retrieved from: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/tpr/vol59/iss3/8
Guimarães, L. M. (2012). Investigações sobre o valor reforçador das relações verbais
de tato e textual em contexto de equivalência de estímulos [Studies on the
reinforcing value of tact and textual verbal relations in the context of stimulus
equivalence] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Graduate Program in Psychology,
Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil.
Horne, P. J., & Erjavec, M. (2007). Do infants show generalized imitation of gestures?
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87(1), 63–87. doi:10.1901/jeab
.2007.11-06
10 Elias and Goyos

Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic
behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65(1), 185–241.
doi:10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185
Lowenkron, B. (1998). Some logical functions of joint control. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69(3), 327–354. doi:10.1901/jeab.1998.69-327
Lowenkron, B. (2004). Meaning: A verbal behavior account. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 20(1), 77–97. PMCID: PMC2755434.
Osborne, J. G., & Gatch, M. B. (1989). Stimulus equivalence and receptive reading by
hearing-impaired preschool children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in
Schools, 20(1), 63–75.
Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training-structure
effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 72(1), 117–137. doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.72-117
Saunders, K. J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1989). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded
adults: the effect of training the component simple discriminations. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52(1), 1–12. doi:10.1901/jeab.1989.52-1
Saunders, K. J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1993). Conditional discrimination in mentally
retarded subjects: Programming acquisition and learning set. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60(3), 571–585. doi:10.1901/jeab.1993.60-571
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalence. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 14(1), 5–13.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 127–146. doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127
Sidman, M., & Cresson, O. (1973). Reading and crossmodal transfer of stimulus
equivalences in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77(5),
515–523.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., & Stoddard, L. T. (1992). Classroom applications of
stimulus equivalence technology. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2(3), 225–256.
doi:10.1007/BF00948817
Tsai, H., & Greer, R. D. (2006). Conditioned observation of books and accelerated
acquisition of textual responding by preschool children. Journal of Early and
Intensive Behavioral Interventions, 3(1), 35–60. Retrieved from
http://www.baojournal.com
Vargas, E. A. (1982). Intraverbal behavior: The codic, duplic, and sequelic subtypes.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 1(1), 5–7. PMCID: PMC2748434.
Young, J. M., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., & Poulson, C. L. (1994). Generalized
imitation and response-class formation in children with autism. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(4), 685–697. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-685