JoVE Logo
Faculty Resource Center

Sign In

Summary

Abstract

Introduction

Protocol

Representative Results

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Materials

References

Behavior

RBDT: A Computerized Task System based in Transposition for the Continuous Analysis of Relational Behavior Dynamics in Humans

Published: July 17th, 2021

DOI:

10.3791/62285

1CEICAH, Universidad Veracruzana, 2Laboratorio Nacional de Informática Avanzada A.C., 3Laboratorio Multimedia DES Bio-Agro, Universidad Veracruzana
* These authors contributed equally

RBDT integrates behavioral patterns based on discrete responses (e.g., stimuli selection, placement of figures) and continuous responses (e.g., tracking of cursor movements, figure dragging) to study relational behavior with humans. RBDT is a challenging task based on transposition, in which the participant sets up stimuli compounds with a relational criterion (more/less than).

The most extensively employed paradigm for the analysis of relational behavior is the transposition task. Nevertheless, it has two important limitations for its use in humans. The first one is the "ceiling effect" reported in linguistic participants. The second limitation is that the standard transposition task, being a simple choice task between two stimuli, does not include active behavioral patterns and their recording, as relevant factors in emergence of relational behavior. In the present work, a challenging multi-object task based on transposition, integrated with recording software, is presented. This paradigm requires behavioral active patterns to form stimuli compounds with a given relational criteria. The paradigm is composed of three arrangements: a) a bank of stimuli, b) sample relational compounds, and c) comparison relational compounds. The task consists of the participant constructing two comparison relational compounds by dragging figures of a bank of stimuli with the same relation shown by the sample relational compounds. These factors conform an integrated system that can be manipulated in an individual or integrative manner. The software records discrete responses (e.g., stimuli selections, placements) and continuous responses (e.g., tracking of cursor movements, figure dragging). The obtained data, data analysis and graphical representations proposed are compatible with frameworks that assume an active nature of the attentional and perceptual processes and an integrated and continuous system between the perceiver and the environment. The proposed paradigm deepens the systematic study of relational behavior in humans in the framework of the transposition paradigm and expands it to a continuous analysis of interaction between active patterns and the dynamics of relational behavior.

The ability to recognize and respond based on the relational qualities of objects regardless of absolute attributes that each one possesses is named relational behavior. From an ecological view, relational behavior could be critical to the adjustment of the organisms, humans and not humans, to complex and dynamic natural environments. In social and ecological contexts, the organisms are constrained to respond to permutable aspects of the environment (e.g., food, predators) that vary in relation to given qualities (e.g., size, color, smell, the intensity of a given sound, etc.) of the objects, events, and other organisms. One of the most exciting and controversial issu....

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

Both protocols follow university guidelines to conduct behavioral research with human participants. RBDT software and the user's manual can be downloaded from https://osf.io/7xscj/

1. Experiment 1: Relational behavior under different relational criteria without restriction of active patterns of behavior

NOTE: Five elementary school children, between 10 to 11 years-old, volunteered to participate in this study, with the informed consent of their parents and teacher.......

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

EXPERIMENT 1:
The behavioral continuum of each participant was analyzed. Analysis included comparison of excessive placements and variety of placement sequences, latencies in seconds between placements, choice of permutable, non-permutable and irrelevant stimuli, and correct (correct trials regardless of the number of placements or use of corrective trials) and accurate trials (correct trials with four placements and without corrective trials).

In the ordering task, whic.......

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

The proposed paradigm expands and deepens the systematic study of relational behavior in humans in the framework of the transposition paradigm. On the one hand, it allows the analysis of some factors and parameters previously studied in the area - e.g., stimulus modality2,5,10,23,26; difference or disparity between stimuli4,<.......

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

None.

....

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

Name Company Catalog Number Comments
Pentium Laptop Computer - - Monitor must be a minimum of 14", and windows processor.
Keyboard - - -
Optic Mouse - - It is suggested to use a device other than the touchpad to be used as a mouse.
RbDT https://osf.io/7xscj/

  1. Köhler, W. Simple structural functions in the chimpanzee and in the chicken. A source book of Gestalt psychology. , 217-227 (1918).
  2. Spence, K. W. The differential response in animals to stimuli varying within a single dimension. Psychological Review. 44 (5), 430-444 (1937).
  3. Lazareva, O. F., Wasserman, E. A., Young, M. E. Transposition in pigeons: reassessing spence (1937) with multiple discrimination training. Animal Learning & Behavior. 33 (1), 22-46 (2005).
  4. Reese, H. W. . The Perception of Stimulus Relations: Discrimination Learning and Transposition. , (2013).
  5. Ribes-Iñesta, E., León, A., Andrade-González, D. E. Comparison patterns: An experimental study of transposition in children. Behavioural Processes. 171, 104024 (2020).
  6. Andrade-González, D. E., León, A., Hernández-Eslava, V. Tarea de transposición y contactos funcionales de comparación: Una revisión metodológica y empírica. Acta Comportamentalia: Revista Latina de Análisis de Comportamiento. 28 (4), 539-565 (2020).
  7. Lazareva, O. F. Relational learning in a context of transposition: A review. Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior. 97 (2), 231-248 (2012).
  8. Lazareva, O. F., Young, M. E., Wasserman, E. A. A three-component model of relational responding in the transposition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. 40 (1), 63-80 (2014).
  9. Leighty, K. A., Grand, A. P., Pittman Courte, V. L., Maloney, M. A., Bettinger, T. L. Relational responding by eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) in a series of color discrimination tasks. Journal of Comparative Psychology. 127 (3), 256-264 (2013).
  10. Lazareva, O. F., McInnerney, J., Williams, T. Implicit relational learning in a multiple-object tracking task. Behavioural processes. 152, 26-36 (2018).
  11. Vatsuro, E. G., Kashkai, M. D. A Comparative Investigation of Transposition of Learning: (In Normal Children of Various Ages and in Mental Deficients; in Apes and in Monkeys). Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry. 4 (1), 16-25 (1965).
  12. Kuenne, M. R. Experimental investigation of the relation of language to transposition behavior in young children. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 36 (6), 471 (1946).
  13. Rudel, R. G. Transposition of response by children trained in intermediate-size problems. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 50 (3), 292-295 (1957).
  14. Rudel, R. G. Transposition of response to size in children. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 51 (3), 386-390 (1958).
  15. Zeiler, M. D. Transposition in adults with simultaneous and successive stimulus presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 68 (1), 103-107 (1964).
  16. Alberts, E., Ehrenfreund, D. Transposition in children as a function of age. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 41 (1), 30-38 (1951).
  17. Johnson, R. C., Zara, R. C. Relational learning in young children. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 53 (6), 594-597 (1960).
  18. Lazareva, O. F., Miner, M., Wasserman, E. A., Young, M. E. Multiple-pair training enhances transposition in pigeons. Learning & Behavior. 36 (3), 174-187 (2008).
  19. Marsh, G. Relational learning in the pigeon. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 64 (3), 519-521 (1967).
  20. Pushkina, A. G. Mechanisms of Transposition of Relations in Preschool-Age Children. Soviet Psychology. 9 (3), 213-234 (1971).
  21. Jackson, T. A., Dominguez, K. Studies in the transposition of learning by children: II. Relative vs. absolute choice with multi-dimensional stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 24 (6), 630-639 (1939).
  22. Jackson, T. A., Jerome, E. Studies in the transposition of learning by children: IV. A preliminary study of patternedness in discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 26 (4), 432-439 (1940).
  23. McKee, J. P., Riley, D. A. Auditory Transposition in Six-Year-Old Children. Child Development. 33 (2), 469 (1962).
  24. Riley, D. A. Experiments on the development of pitch and loudness as psychological dimensions. Anthropology & Medicine. 13 (5), 312-318 (1965).
  25. Jackson, T. A. Studies In The Transposition Of Learning By Children: III. Transpositional Response As A Function Of The Number Of Transposed Dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 25 (1), 116-124 (1939).
  26. Lawrence, D. H., Derivera, J. Evidence for relational transposition. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 47 (6), 465 (1954).
  27. Derenne, A., Garnett, A. M. Effects of Successive and Simultaneous Stimulus Presentations on Absolute and Relational Stimulus Control in Adult Humans. The Psychological Record. 66 (1), 165-175 (2016).
  28. Stevenson, H. W., Iscoe, I., McConnell, C. A developmental study of transposition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 49 (4), 278-280 (1955).
  29. Yamazaki, Y. Transposition and its generalization in common marmosets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. , 20140505 (2014).
  30. Kroupin, I., Carey, S. Population differences in performance on Relational Match to Sample (RMTS) sometimes reflect differences in inductive biases alone. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 37, 75-83 (2021).
  31. Wasserman, E. A., Young, M. E., Castro, L. Mechanisms of same-different conceptualization: entropy happens. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 37, 19-28 (2021).
  32. Kotovsky, L., Gentner, D. Comparison and Categorization in the Development of Relational Similarity. Child Development. 67 (6), 2797-2822 (1996).
  33. Gibson, E. J. . Principles of perceptual learning and development. , (1969).
  34. Lombardo, T. J. . The Reciprocity of Perceiver and Environment: The Evolution of James J. Gibson's Ecological Psychology. , (2017).
  35. Turvey, M. T. . Lectures on Perception: An Ecological Perspective. , (2018).
  36. Gibson, J. J. . The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition. , (2014).
  37. Gibson, J. J. A theory of direct visual perception. Vision and mind: selected readings in the philosophy of perception. , (2002).
  38. Zinchenko, V. P., Chzhi-tsin, V., Tarakanov, V. V. The Formation and Development of Perceptual Activity. Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry. 2 (1), 3-12 (1963).

This article has been published

Video Coming Soon

JoVE Logo

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Research

Education

ABOUT JoVE

Copyright © 2024 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved