Table 2.
Individual participants’ average sessions to mastery for diagonal targets, targets taught after failing to demonstrate recombinative generalization for each submatrix, and percentage novel noun-verb targets for which recombinative generalization was demonstrated without additional training
| Participant | Submatrix | Average sessions to mastery diagonal ● | Average sessions to mastery generalization Δ | Percent novel targets generalized | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hank | Tacting | 1A | 11.7 | 4.5 | 66% |
| 1B | 0.0 | 6.0 | 83% | ||
| 2A | 9.0 | 5.0 | 83% | ||
| 2B | 7.0 | 8.0 | 83% | ||
| Listener | 1A | 8.3 | 4.0 | 83% | |
| 1B | 0.0 | 6.0 | 88% | ||
| 2A | - | - | - | ||
| 2B | - | - | - | ||
| Iggy | Tacting | 3A | 10.0 | 9.0 | 50% |
| 3B | 11.0 | 11.0 | 92% | ||
| 4A | 4.7 | 6.3 | 50% | ||
| 4B | 6.0 | 5.5 | 92% | ||
| Listener | 3A | 9.0 | 8.0 | 83% | |
| 3B | 0.0 | 8.7 | 88% | ||
| 4A | 4.0 | 6.5 | 66% | ||
| 4B | 6.0 | 5.7 | 83% | ||
| Bud | Tacting | 5A | 4.7 | 8.5 | 0% |
| 5B | 4.0 | 0.0 | 83% | ||
| 5A | 3.0 | 0.0 | 100% | ||
| 5B | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100% | ||
| Listener | 5A | 4.3 | 5.0 | 0% | |
| 5B | 0.0 | 0.0 | 88% | ||
| 5A | 3.0 | 0.0 | 100% | ||
| 5B | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100% | ||