Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stimulus control topography coherence theory: Foundations and extensions

  • Published:
The Behavior Analyst Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baum, W. M. (2002). From molecular to molar: A paradigm shift in behavior analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 95–116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bickel, W. K., & Etzel, B. C. (1985). The quantal nature of controlling stimulus-response relations as measured in tests of stimulus generalization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 245–270.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, N. W., Fletcher, K. L., & Turner, L. A. (1997). Cognitive competencies and strategy use in individuals with mental retardation. In W. E. MacLean, Jr. (Ed.), Ellis’ handbook of mental deficiency, psychological theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 197–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D. E., & Werner, T. J. (1978). Complex learning and information processing by pigeons: A critical analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 565–601.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. R., Brady, J., & Lowry, M. (1981). The role of differential responding in matching-to-sample and delayed matching performance. In M. L. Commons & J. A. Nevin (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior: Vol. 1. Discriminative properties of reinforcement schedules (pp. 345–364). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commons, M. L., Nevin, J. A., & Davison, M. C. (1991). Signal detection: Mechanisms, models, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. (1965). The complex discriminated operant: Studies of matching-to-sample and related problems. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Stimulus generalization (pp. 284–330). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, M., & Nevin, J. A. (1999). Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: An integration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 439–482.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, C. K., Oross, S., DiFiore, A., & Mc-Ilvane, W. J. (2000). Measuring brain activity correlates of behavior: A methodological overview. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 18, 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dube, W. V., Lombard, K. M., Farren, K. M., Flusser, D. S., Balsamo, L. M., Fowler, T. R., et al. (2003). Stimulus overselectivity and observing behavior in individuals with mental retardation. In S. Soraci & K. Murata-Soraci (Eds.), Visual information processing (pp. 109–123). Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). Some implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergent stimulus classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 197–218). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (2002). Quantitative assessments of sensitivity to reinforcement contingencies in mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 136–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (in press). Consequence-sensitivity analysis of motivational processes in mental retardation. In H. Switzky, R. Schalock, L. Hickson, & B. Benson (Eds.), Current perspectives on individual differences in personality and motivation in persons with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. Academic Press.

  • Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., & Green, G. (1992). An analysis of generalized identity matching-to-sample test procedures. The Psychological Record, 42, 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Mackay, H. A., & Stoddard, L. T. (1987). Stimulus class membership established via stimulus-reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 159–175.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Maguire, R., Mackay, H. A., & Stoddard, L. T. (1989). Stimulus class formation and stimulus-reinorcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 65–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Estávez, A. F., Fuentes, L. J., Overmier, J. B., & Gonzalez, C. (2003). Differential outcomes effect in children and adults with Down syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 108, 108–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes, W. K. (1959). The statistical approach to learning theory. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 2, pp. 380–491). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeters, S., Blakely, E., & Poling, A. (1992). The differential outcomes effect. The Psychological Record, 42, 389–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, H. F. (1950). Analysis of discrimination learning by monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 26–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. G., Solomon, C., Doran, J., & Frezza, D. A. (1976). The analysis of behavior in planning instruction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R. L. (Eds.). (1988). Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, B. J., Hanley, M. J., & Magid, D. F. (1979). A limitation on the law of effect. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 132–136.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huguenin, N. H., & Touchette, P. E. (1980). Visual attention in retarded adults: Combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 77–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, K. C., & Bickel, W. K. (1988). Toward an explicit analysis of generalization: A stimulus control interpretation. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 115–129.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, M. (1965). Hypothesis behavior. In A. M. Schrier, H. L. Harlow, & F. Stollnitz (Eds.), Behavior of nonhuman primates (Vol. 1, pp. 97–127). New York: Academic Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackay, H. A., Stromer, R., & Serna, R. W. (1998). Emergent behavior and intellectual functioning: Stimulus classes, generalization and transfer. In S. A. Soraci & W. J. McIlvane (Eds.), Perspectives on fundamental processes in intellectual functioning: A survey of research approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 287–310). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackintosh, N. J. (1977). Stimulus control: Attentional factors. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 481–513). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, M. R., & Dougher, M. J. (1993). Compound stimuli in emergent relations: Extending the scope of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 529–542.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Markham, M. R., Dougher, M. J., & Augustson, E. A. (2002). Transfer of operant discrimination and respondent elicitation via emergent relations of compound stimuli. The Psychological Record, 52, 325–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlvane, W. J. (1992). Stimulus control analysis and nonverbal instructional methods for people with intellectual disabilities. In N. W. Bray (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 18, pp. 55–109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (1992). Stimulus control shaping and stimulus control topographies. The Behavior Analyst, 15, 89–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Kledaras, J. B., Iennaco, F. M., & Stoddard, L. T. (1990). Teaching relational discrimination to individuals with mental retardation: Some problems and possible solutions. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 283–296.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McIlvane, W. J., Kledaras, J. B., Callahan, T. C., & Dube, W. V. (2002). High probability stimulus control topographies with delayed S + onset in a simultaneous discrimination procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 189–198.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McIlvane, W. J., Kledaras, J. B., Dube, W. V., & Stoddard, L. T. (1989). Automated instruction of severely and profoundly retarded individuals. In J. Mulick & R. Antonak (Eds.), Transitions in mental retardation: Vol. 4. Applications and implications of technology (pp. 15–76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlvane, W. J., Kledaras, J. B., Stoddard, L. T., & Dube, W. V. (1990). Delayed sample presentation in MTS: Some possible advantages for teaching individuals with developmental limitations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 8, 31–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlvane, W. J., Serna, R. W., Dube, W. V., & Stromer, R. L. (2000). Stimulus control topography coherence and stimulus equivalence: Reconciling test outcomes with theory. In J. Leslie & D. E. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 85–110). Reno NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, B. A. (1969). Selective attention: The effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 539–550.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, B. A., & Sidman, M. (1970). Reinforcement schedules and stimulus control. In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 187–214). New York: Apple-ton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rilling, M. (1977). Stimulus control and inhibitory processes. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 432–480). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serna, R. (1991). Interchangeability of stimulus terms in five-term contingencies. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 9, 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1969). Generalization gradients and stimulus control in delayed matching-to-sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 285–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1979). Remarks. Behaviorism, 7, 123–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1980). A note on the measurement of conditional discrimination. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 285–289.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1992). Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 173–182.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M., & Stoddard, L. T. (1966). Programming perception and learning for retarded children. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 2, pp. 151–208). New York: Academic Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M., & Stoddard, L. T. (1967). The effectiveness of fading in programming a simultaneous form discrimination for retarded children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 3–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, 12, 40–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stikeleather, G., & Sidman, M. (1990). An instance of spurious equivalence relations. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 1–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, L. T., & McIlvane, W. J. (1989). Establishing auditory stimulus control in profoundly retarded individuals. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 141–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, L. T., & Sidman, M. (1971a). The removal and restoration of stimulus control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 16, 143–154.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, L. T., & Sidman, M. (1971b). Stimulus control after intradimensional discrimination training. Psychological Reports, 28, 147–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, T., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stromer, R., McIlvane, W. J., & Serna, R. W. (1993). Complex stimulus control and equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 585–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touchette, P. E. (1969). Tilted lines as complex stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 211–214.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Trapold, M. (1970). Are expectancies based upon different positive reinforcing events discriminably different? Learning and Motivation, 1, 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeaman, D., & House, B. J. (1979). A review of attention theory. In N.R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency, psychological theory and research (pp. 63–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. E. K. Shriver Center for Mental Retardation, University of Massachusetts Medical School, US

    William J. McIlvane & William V. Dube

Authors
  1. William J. McIlvane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William V. Dube
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to William J. McIlvane or William V. Dube.

Additional information

This research was supported by Grants HD 033802 and HD 039816 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NICHD.

We thank Murray Sidman, Michael Davison, and Tony Nevin for stimulating many of our thoughts and apologize for any inadvertent misrepresentations or inaccuracies in our discussion of their work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McIlvane, W.J., Dube, W.V. Stimulus control topography coherence theory: Foundations and extensions. BEHAV ANALYST 26, 195–213 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392076

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392076

Key words

Search

Navigation