The Cognitive Dynamics of Negated Sentence Verification

We explored the influence of negation on cognitive dynamics, measured using mouse-movement trajectories, to test the classic notion that negation acts as an operator on linguistic processing. In three experiments, participants verified the truth or falsity of simple statements, and we tracked the computer-mouse trajectories of their responses. Sentences expressing these facts sometimes contained a negation. Such negated statements could be true (e.g., "elephants are not small") or false (e.g., "elephants are not large"). In the first experiment, as predicted by the classic notion of negation, we found that negation caused more discreteness in the mouse trajectory of a response. The second experiment induced a simple context for these statements, yet negation still increased discreteness in trajectories. A third experiment enhanced the pragmatic context of sentences, and the discreteness was substantially diminished, with one primary measure no longer significantly showing increased discreteness at all. Traditional linguistic theories predict rapid shifts in cognitive dynamics occur due to the nature of negation: It is an operator that reverses the truth or falsity of an interpretation. We argue that these results support both propositional and contextual accounts of negation present in the literature, suggesting that contextual factors are crucial for determining the kind of cognitive dynamics displayed. We conclude by drawing broader lessons about theories of cognition from the case of negation.

[1]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Situation models in language comprehension and memory. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  J. Houk,et al.  Kinematic properties of on-line error corrections in the monkey , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  Mina Johnson-Glenberg,et al.  Not Propositions , 1999, Cognitive Systems Research.

[4]  Rick Dale,et al.  Explanatory Pluralism in Cognitive Science , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  David A. Forsyth,et al.  Utility data annotation with Amazon Mechanical Turk , 2008, 2008 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops.

[6]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  The Experiential View of Language Con1prehension: How Is Negation Represented? , 2007 .

[8]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  The Continuity Of Mind , 2008 .

[10]  P. C. Wason,et al.  The Processing of Positive and Negative Information , 1959 .

[11]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content , 1972 .

[12]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[13]  J. Kalaska,et al.  Neural Correlates of Reaching Decisions in Dorsal Premotor Cortex: Specification of Multiple Direction Choices and Final Selection of Action , 2005, Neuron.

[14]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[15]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  The Body's Contribution to Language , 2003 .

[16]  Salim Roukos,et al.  Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. , 1983, Psychophysiology.

[17]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Effects of negation and situational presence on the accessibility of text information. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  Rachel Giora Is negation unique? On the processes and products of phrasal negation , 2006 .

[19]  Kerri L. Johnson,et al.  Will a category cue attract you? Motor output reveals dynamic competition across person construal. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[21]  Howard Gardner,et al.  Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People's Minds , 2004 .

[22]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The strategic nature of changing your mind , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Continuous Dynamics in Real-Time Cognition , 2006 .

[24]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Gradiency and Visual Context in Syntactic Garden-Paths. , 2007, Journal of memory and language.

[25]  B. Kaup,et al.  Negation and its impact on the accessibility of text information , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[26]  Nicholas D. Duran,et al.  The action dynamics of overcoming the truth , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  J. Hartigan,et al.  The Dip Test of Unimodality , 1985 .

[28]  Jennifer M. Roche,et al.  The Porous Cognition-Action Interface , Language Processing , and Pluralism , 2010 .

[29]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Changing your mind: a computational mechanism of vacillation , 2009, Nature.

[30]  Brendan T. O'Connor,et al.  Cheap and Fast – But is it Good? Evaluating Non-Expert Annotations for Natural Language Tasks , 2008, EMNLP.

[31]  P. Wason The contexts of plausible denial , 1965 .

[32]  James S Magnuson,et al.  Moving hand reveals dynamics of thought. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Tracking the Continuity of Language Comprehension: Computer Mouse Trajectories Suggest Parallel Syntactic Processing , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[34]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Context effects in lexical processing , 1987, Cognition.

[36]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Action Dynamics Reveal Parallel Competition in Decision Making , 2008, Psychological science.

[37]  P. Wason,et al.  NEGATIVES: DENOTATION AND CONNOTATION. , 1963, British journal of psychology.

[38]  G. V. van Orden,et al.  Self-organization of cognitive performance. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[39]  Rick Dale,et al.  The Self-Organization of Explicit Attitudes , 2009, Psychological science.

[40]  M A Just,et al.  The relation between comprehending and remembering some complex sentences , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[41]  Rick Dale,et al.  The possibility of a pluralist cognitive science , 2008, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[42]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  On imagining what is true (and what is false) , 2003 .

[43]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  When the Truth Is Not Too Hard to Handle , 2008, Psychological science.

[44]  Jennifer M. Roche,et al.  Exploring Action Dynamics as an Index of Paired-Associate Learning , 2008, PloS one.

[45]  Sangeet Khemlani,et al.  Disjunctive illusory inferences and how to eliminate them , 2009, Memory & cognition.

[46]  Rainer W. Friedrich,et al.  Olfactory pattern classification by discrete neuronal network states , 2010, Nature.