Common bidirectional naming (C-BiN)
Both speaker behavior and listener responses are established for the same stimulus from training only either the speaker or the listener response (e.g., a client is taught to tact “dog”,… Read more
Both speaker behavior and listener responses are established for the same stimulus from training only either the speaker or the listener response (e.g., a client is taught to tact “dog”,… Read more
Relating, framing and equating. PTB co-founder Dana Meller drills into the generalizability of relational frame theory, equivalence-based instruction, and stimulus equivalence. Would you believe they all go together?
Refer to BCBA® Task List (5th ed.) Sections B-15: Define and provide examples of derived stimulus relations; G-21: Use procedures to promote stimulus and response generalization; G-12: Use equivalence-based instruction.
Dana Do’s: Relating, Framing and Equating Read More
Transitivity is connected to stimulus equivalence, yes, but there’s more to it than that. Let PTB co-founder Dana Meller explain the key differences between these two concepts.
Dana Do’s: The Differences Between Stimulus Equivalence and Transitivity, Explained Read More
A complex mand response (e.g., a mand that includes an autoclitic, or a tact) that develops without direct training.
Untrained stimulus relations (e.g., responses to stimuli) that develop following the training of other stimulus relations.
The development of skills that were not directly trained, following the acquisition of skills that were directly trained.
Intraverbal relations that emerge from one previously acquired tact, intraverbal, listener response, direct observations, and combinations of verbal behaviors (e.g., when asked, “What do you sleep in?” the client responds,
A response to novel, untrained combinations of stimuli that were taught in different contexts (e.g., learning to tact “red apple” and “green tomato”, and without training, correctly tacting, “red tomato”