Skip to main content
PMC home page
The Behavior Analyst logoLink to The Behavior Analyst
. 2003 Fall;26(2):195–213. doi: 10.1007/BF03392076

Stimulus control topography coherence theory: Foundations and extensions

William J McIlvane, William V Dube
PMCID: PMC2731455  PMID: 22478402

Abstract

Stimulus control topography refers to qualitative differences among members of a functional stimulus class. Stimulus control topography coherence refers to the degree of concordance between the stimulus properties specified as relevant by the individual arranging a reinforcement contingency (behavior analyst, experimenter, teacher, etc.) and the stimulus properties that come to control the behavior of the organism (experimental subject, student, etc.) that experiences those contingencies. This paper summarizes the rationale for analyses of discrimination learning outcomes in terms of stimulus control topography coherence and briefly reviews some of the foundational studies that led to this perspective. We also suggest directions for future research, including pursuit of conceptual and methodological challenges to a complete stimulus control topography coherence analysis of processes involved in discriminated and generalized operants.

Keywords: stimulus control, stimulus control topography, discrimination, generalization

Full text

PDF
195

Images in this article

202Figure 3
on p.202
204Figure 5
on p.204

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baum William M. From molecular to molar: a paradigm shift in behavior analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 Jul;78(1):95–116. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.78-95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickel W. K., Etzel B. C. The quantal nature of controlling stimulus-response relations as measured in tests of stimulus generalization. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Sep;44(2):245–270. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Carter D. E., Werner T. J. Complex learning and information processing by pigeons: a critical analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):565–601. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Davison M., Nevin J. Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: an integration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):439–482. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dube W. V., McIlvane W. J., Mackay H. A., Stoddard L. T. Stimulus class membership established via stimulus-reinforcer relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Mar;47(2):159–175. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dube W. V., McIlvane W. J., Maguire R. W., Mackay H. A., Stoddard L. T. Stimulus class formation and stimulus-reinforcer relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 Jan;51(1):65–76. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dube William V., McIlvane William J. Quantitative assessments of sensitivity to reinforcement contingencies in mental retardation. Am J Ment Retard. 2002 Mar;107(2):136–145. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107<0136:QAOSTR>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Estévez Angeles F., Fuentes Luis J., Overmier J. Bruce, González Carmen. Differential outcomes effect in children and adults with down syndrome. Am J Ment Retard. 2003 Mar;108(2):108–116. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2003)108<0108:DOEICA>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Horne P. J., Lowe C. F. On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):185–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. House B. J., Hanley M. J., Magid D. F. A limitation on the law of effect. Am J Ment Defic. 1979 Sep;84(2):132–136. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Huguenin N. H., Touchette P. E. Visual attention in retarded adults: combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Jan;33(1):77–86. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kirby K. C., Bickel W. K. Toward an explicit analysis of generalization: A stimulus control interpretation. Behav Anal. 1988 Fall;11(2):115–129. doi: 10.1007/BF03392465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Markham M. R., Dougher M. J. Compound stimuli in emergent stimulus relations: Extending the scope of stimulus equivalence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Nov;60(3):529–542. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. McIlvane W. J., Dube W. V., Kledaras J. B., Iennaco F. M., Stoddard L. T. Teaching relational discrimination to individuals with mental retardation: some problems and possible solutions. Am J Ment Retard. 1990 Nov;95(3):283–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. McIlvane W. J., Dube W. V. Stimulus control shaping and stimulus control topographies. Behav Anal. 1992 Spring;15(1):89–94. doi: 10.1007/BF03392591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. McIlvane William J., Kledaras Joanne B., Callahan T. C., Dube William V. High-probability stimulus control topographies with delayed S+ onset in a simultaneous discrimination procedure. J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 Mar;77(2):189–198. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ray B. A. Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jul;12(4):539–550. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sidman M. A note on the measurement of conditional discrimination. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Mar;33(2):285–289. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sidman M. A note on the measurement of conditional discrimination. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Mar;33(2):285–289. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sidman M. Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Jul;58(1):173–182. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sidman M. Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Jul;74(1):127–146. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sidman M., Stoddard L. T. The effectiveness of fading in programming a simultaneous form discrimination for retarded children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Jan;10(1):3–15. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Stoddard L. T., McIlvane W. J. Establishing control by spoken words with profoundly mentally retarded individuals. Res Dev Disabil. 1989;10(2):141–151. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(89)90003-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Stoddard L. T., Sidman M. Stimulus control after intradimensional discrimination training. Psychol Rep. 1971 Feb;28(1):147–157. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1971.28.1.147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Stoddard L. T., Sidman M. The removal and restoration of stimulus control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Sep;16(2):143–154. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Stokes T. F., Baer D. M. An implicit technology of generalization. J Appl Behav Anal. 1977 Summer;10(2):349–367. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Touchette P. E. Tilted lines as complex stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Mar;12(2):211–214. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Behavior Analyst are provided here courtesy of Association for Behavior Analysis International

RESOURCES