Overcoming perceptual features in logical reasoning: An event-related potentials study

It is more difficult for reasoners to detect that the letter-number pair H7 verifies the conditional rule If there is not a T then there is not a 4 than to detect that it verifies the rule If there is an H then there is a 7. In prior work [Prado, J., & Noveck, I. A. (2007). Overcoming perceptual features in logical reasoning: a parametric functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19(4), 642-657], we argued that this difficulty was due to mismatching effects, i.e. perceptual mismatches that arise when the items mentioned in the rule (e.g. T and 4) mismatch those presented in the test-pair (H and 7). The present study aimed to test this claim directly by recording ERPs while participants evaluated conditional rules in the presence or absence of mismatches. We found that mismatches, not only trigger a frontocentral N2 (an ERP known to be related to perceptual mismatch) but that they, parametrically modulate its amplitude (e.g. two mismatches prompt a greater N2 than one). Our results indicate that the main role of negations in conditional rules is to focus attention on the negated constituent but also suggest that there is some inter-individual differences in the way participants apprehend such negations, as indicated by a correlation between N2 amplitude and participants' reaction times. Overall, these findings emphasize how overcoming perceptual features plays a role in the mismatching effect and extend the mismatch-related effects of the N2 into a reasoning task.

[1]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[2]  M M Mesulam,et al.  An electrophysiological index of stimulus unfamiliarity. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[3]  Nick Chater,et al.  Information gain explains relevance which explains the selection task , 1995, Cognition.

[4]  Jérôme Prado,et al.  Overcoming Perceptual Features in Logical Reasoning: A Parametric Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? , 2002 .

[6]  M. Milham,et al.  Competition for priority in processing increases prefrontal cortex's involvement in top-down control: an event-related fMRI study of the stroop task. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[7]  Yuping Wang,et al.  Enhancement of conflict processing activity in human brain under task relevant condition , 2001, Neuroscience Letters.

[8]  C. Carter,et al.  The Timing of Action-Monitoring Processes in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  Jonathan R. Folstein,et al.  Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[10]  R. Nickerson Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[11]  Yuping Wang,et al.  Event-related potentials elicited by stimulus spatial discrepancy in humans , 2002, Neuroscience Letters.

[12]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[13]  Jonathan St. B. T. Evans,et al.  Matching bias in conditional reasoning : Do we understand it after 25 years ? , 1998 .

[14]  Jonathan Evans Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning , 1984 .

[15]  J. Ford,et al.  ERPs to response production and inhibition. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  E. Jodo,et al.  Relation of a negative ERP component to response inhibition in a Go/No-go task. , 1992, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[17]  E. Courchesne,et al.  Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[18]  M. Oaksford,et al.  Reasoning with conditionals containing negated constituents. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  Yuping Wang,et al.  The sequential processing of visual feature conjunction mismatches in the human brain. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[20]  M. Oaksford Contrast classes and matching bias as explanations of the effects of negation on conditional reasoning , 2002 .

[21]  Yuping Wang,et al.  Event-related potentials evoked by multi-feature conflict under different attentive conditions , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  N. Chater,et al.  RATIONAL EXPLANATION OF THE SELECTION TASK , 1996 .

[23]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin , 2004 .

[24]  L. Rips The Psychology of Proof , 1994 .

[25]  P. Pollard,et al.  On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[26]  J. S. Evans,et al.  Interpretation and Matching Bias in a Reasoning Task , 1972 .

[27]  Ira A. Noveck,et al.  How reaction time measures elucidate the matching bias and the way negations are processed , 2006 .

[28]  Philip David Zelazo,et al.  Neural correlates of cognitive control in childhood and adolescence: Disentangling the contributions of age and executive function , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  J. Hohnsbein,et al.  ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[31]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The neural basis of error detection: conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. , 2004, Psychological review.

[32]  Jonathan S. Evans,et al.  Bias in human reasoning , 1990 .

[33]  E. Donchin,et al.  Probability effects on stimulus evaluation and response processes. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[35]  S. Sloman The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[36]  Jonathan Evans On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning , 2007 .

[37]  N. Tzourio-mazoyer,et al.  Neural foundations of logical and mathematical cognition , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[38]  M. Oaksford,et al.  Negations and natural sampling in data selection: Ecological versus heuristic explanations of matching bias , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[39]  Jonathan Evans In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[40]  Martin Eimer,et al.  Effects of attention and stimulus probability on ERPs in a Go/Nogo task , 1993, Biological Psychology.

[41]  R. C. Oldfield THE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HANDEDNESS , 1971 .