Limits...
Different neural systems contribute to semantic bias and conflict detection in the inclusion fallacy task.

Liang P, Goel V, Jia X, Li K - Front Hum Neurosci (2014)

Bottom Line: It was found that a left fronto-temporal system, along with a superior medial frontal system, was specifically activated in response to fallacious responses consistent with a semantic biasing of judgment explanation.A right fronto-parietal system was specifically recruited in response to detecting conflict associated with the heightened fallacy condition.These results are largely consistent with previous studies of reasoning fallacy and support a multiple systems model of reasoning.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University , Beijing , China ; Brain Key Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Brain Informatics , Beijing , China.

ABSTRACT
The inclusion fallacy is a phenomenon in which generalization from a specific premise category to a more general conclusion category is considered stronger than a generalization to a specific conclusion category nested within the more general set. Such inferences violate rational norms and are part of the reasoning fallacy literature that provides interesting tasks to explore cognitive and neural basis of reasoning. To explore the functional neuroanatomy of the inclusion fallacy, we used a 2 × 2 factorial design, with factors for quantification (explicit and implicit) and response (fallacious and non-fallacious). It was found that a left fronto-temporal system, along with a superior medial frontal system, was specifically activated in response to fallacious responses consistent with a semantic biasing of judgment explanation. A right fronto-parietal system was specifically recruited in response to detecting conflict associated with the heightened fallacy condition. These results are largely consistent with previous studies of reasoning fallacy and support a multiple systems model of reasoning.

No MeSH data available.


(A) Behavioral performance of 62 subjects and (B) the 15 subjects with enough trials for the further fMRI data analysis. The error bars represent the SEM.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4202773&req=5

Figure 1: (A) Behavioral performance of 62 subjects and (B) the 15 subjects with enough trials for the further fMRI data analysis. The error bars represent the SEM.

Mentions: Behavioral scores were in keeping with expectations (see Figure 1). In terms of responses from all 62 participants, we found a main effect of response [F(1,61) = 3.81, p = 0.05], such that the number of non-fallacious responses were greater than the number of fallacious responses. There was also a quantification (explicit, implicit) by response (fallacy, non-fallacy) interaction [F(1,61) = 23.97, p = 0.00] (see Figure 1A), driven by the fact that there were more non-fallacious responses than fallacious responses in the explicit quantifier trials [F(1,61) = 15.54, p = 0.00], but there was no difference in the number of non-fallacious and fallacious responses in the implicit trials [F(1,61) = 0.02, p = 0.90].


Different neural systems contribute to semantic bias and conflict detection in the inclusion fallacy task.

Liang P, Goel V, Jia X, Li K - Front Hum Neurosci (2014)

(A) Behavioral performance of 62 subjects and (B) the 15 subjects with enough trials for the further fMRI data analysis. The error bars represent the SEM.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4202773&req=5

Figure 1: (A) Behavioral performance of 62 subjects and (B) the 15 subjects with enough trials for the further fMRI data analysis. The error bars represent the SEM.
Mentions: Behavioral scores were in keeping with expectations (see Figure 1). In terms of responses from all 62 participants, we found a main effect of response [F(1,61) = 3.81, p = 0.05], such that the number of non-fallacious responses were greater than the number of fallacious responses. There was also a quantification (explicit, implicit) by response (fallacy, non-fallacy) interaction [F(1,61) = 23.97, p = 0.00] (see Figure 1A), driven by the fact that there were more non-fallacious responses than fallacious responses in the explicit quantifier trials [F(1,61) = 15.54, p = 0.00], but there was no difference in the number of non-fallacious and fallacious responses in the implicit trials [F(1,61) = 0.02, p = 0.90].

Bottom Line: It was found that a left fronto-temporal system, along with a superior medial frontal system, was specifically activated in response to fallacious responses consistent with a semantic biasing of judgment explanation.A right fronto-parietal system was specifically recruited in response to detecting conflict associated with the heightened fallacy condition.These results are largely consistent with previous studies of reasoning fallacy and support a multiple systems model of reasoning.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University , Beijing , China ; Brain Key Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Brain Informatics , Beijing , China.

ABSTRACT
The inclusion fallacy is a phenomenon in which generalization from a specific premise category to a more general conclusion category is considered stronger than a generalization to a specific conclusion category nested within the more general set. Such inferences violate rational norms and are part of the reasoning fallacy literature that provides interesting tasks to explore cognitive and neural basis of reasoning. To explore the functional neuroanatomy of the inclusion fallacy, we used a 2 × 2 factorial design, with factors for quantification (explicit and implicit) and response (fallacious and non-fallacious). It was found that a left fronto-temporal system, along with a superior medial frontal system, was specifically activated in response to fallacious responses consistent with a semantic biasing of judgment explanation. A right fronto-parietal system was specifically recruited in response to detecting conflict associated with the heightened fallacy condition. These results are largely consistent with previous studies of reasoning fallacy and support a multiple systems model of reasoning.

No MeSH data available.