Relocating Multiple Objects during Spatial Belief Revision

Reasoners need to revise their beliefs about the state of the world when confronted with contradicting evidence. In the spatial context, belief revision is assumed to be accomplished by variation of initially constructed spatial mental models. The revision process includes decisions about which part of a model to retain and which one to modify. Usually, there are several alternatives for model variation that re-establish consistency within belief sets. Frequently, these alternatives are logically equivalent. Nevertheless, human reasoners show clear preferences for certain alternatives. The assumption is that the preferences result from the application of principles that are cognitively more economic compared to others. In two experiments, we investigate how the number of objects involved in model variation processes affects preferences in model variations during spatial belief revision. We discuss whether the results can be explained in terms of cognitive economy.

[1]  R. Shillcock,et al.  Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 1998 .

[2]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  A Computational Model for Spatial Reasoning with Mental Models , 2005 .

[3]  A. Vandierendonck,et al.  Working Memory Constraints on Linear Reasoning with Spatial and Temporal Contents , 1997, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[4]  Steven Phillips,et al.  Separating Relational from Item Load Effects in Paired Recognition: Temporoparietal and Middle Frontal Gyral Activity with Increased Associates, but Not Items during Encoding and Retention , 2002, NeuroImage.

[5]  Markus Knauff,et al.  Cognitive processes underlying spatial belief revision , 2011, CogSci.

[6]  O. Wilhelm,et al.  Effects of Directionality in Deductive Reasoning: II. Premise Integration and Conclusion Evaluation , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[7]  G. Logan.  Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Markus Knauff,et al.  Cognitive processes underlying the continuity effect in spatial reasoning , 2011, CogSci.

[9]  Gerhard Strube,et al.  Abstract Introduction and Related Work , 2022 .

[10]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Strategies in temporal reasoning , 2000 .

[11]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Two principles of premise integration in spatial reasoning , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[12]  S. Phillips,et al.  Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. , 1998, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[13]  Christian Freksa,et al.  "Spatial and Visual Components in Mental Reasoning About Space" Editorial , 2005 .

[14]  Markus Knauff,et al.  The Strategy Behind Belief Revision: A Matter of Judging Probability or the Use of Mental Models? - eScholarship , 2008 .

[15]  Renée Elio,et al.  Belief Change as Propositional Update , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental models and temporal reasoning , 1996, Cognition.

[17]  G. Logan.  Linguistic and Conceptual Control of Visual Spatial Attention , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  K. McRae,et al.  Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. , 2008 .

[19]  G. Claxton.  Cognitive psychology: New directions , 1980 .

[20]  J. Bain,et al.  Information-Processing Demands of Transitive Inference , 1986 .

[21]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Visual imagery can impede reasoning , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Philip N. Johnson-Laird,et al.  The Effect of an Irrelevant Premise on Temporal and Spatial Reasoning , 1998, Kognitionswissenschaft.

[23]  R. Shillcock,et al.  Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 1995 .

[24]  R. Catrambone,et al.  Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2010 .

[25]  G. Miller,et al.  Language and Perception , 1976 .

[26]  O. Wilhelm,et al.  Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning: I. The comprehension of single relational premises. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Preferred mental models in reasoning about spatial relations , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[28]  M. Carreiras,et al.  Reasoning about relations: Spatial and nonspatial problems , 1997 .

[29]  Markus Knauff,et al.  Spatial Reasoning as Verbal Reasoning , 2010 .

[30]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  How We Detect Logical Inconsistencies , 2004 .

[31]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Reasoning from inconsistency to consistency. , 2004, Psychological review.

[32]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Belief Revision , 1995 .

[33]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[34]  Raymond S. Nickerson,et al.  Attention and Performance Viii , 2014 .

[35]  Markus Knauff,et al.  Efficiency and Minimal Change in Spatial Belief Revision , 2011, CogSci.

[36]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. , 1969 .

[37]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  A model for relational reasoning as verbal reasoning , 2011, Cognitive Systems Research.

[38]  Padraic Monaghan,et al.  Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the cognitive science society , 2001 .

[39]  Cornelius Hagen,et al.  Preferred and Alternative Mental Models in Spatial Reasoning , 2005, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[40]  M. Knauff,et al.  Preferred mental models in qualitative spatial reasoning: A cognitive assessment of Allen's calculus , 1995 .