Advertisement

Human inference beyond syllogisms: an approach using external graphical representations

  • Yuri SatoEmail author
  • Gem Stapleton
  • Mateja Jamnik
  • Zohreh Shams
Research Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

Research in psychology about reasoning has often been restricted to relatively inexpressive statements involving quantifiers (e.g. syllogisms). This is limited to situations that typically do not arise in practical settings, like ontology engineering. In order to provide an analysis of inference, we focus on reasoning tasks presented in external graphic representations where statements correspond to those involving multiple quantifiers and unary and binary relations. Our experiment measured participants’ performance when reasoning with two notations. The first notation used topological constraints to convey information via node-link diagrams (i.e. graphs). The second used topological and spatial constraints to convey information (Euler diagrams with additional graph-like syntax). We found that topo-spatial representations were more effective for inferences than topological representations alone. Reasoning with statements involving multiple quantifiers was harder than reasoning with single quantifiers in topological representations, but not in topo-spatial representations. These findings are compared to those in sentential reasoning tasks.

Keywords

Inference Diagrammatic reasoning External representation Quantifiers Binary predicates 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Parts of this study were presented in the 40th CogSci Conference (July, 2018) in Madison. The authors would like to thank John Howse, Andrew Blake and Ryo Takemura for cooperating on the experiments.

Funding

This research was funded by a Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant (RPG-2016-082) for the project entitled Accessible Reasoning with Diagrams.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the experiment involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the experiment.

Supplementary material

10339_2018_877_MOESM1_ESM.zip (7.2 mb)
Appendix: Materials and instructions used in the experiment (zip 7379 KB)

References

  1. Barwise J, Shimojima A (1995) Surrogate reasoning. Cogn Stud Bull Jpn Cogn Sci Soc 4:7–27Google Scholar
  2. Bowman SR, Angeli G, Potts C, Manning CD (2015) A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In: Proceedings of 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. The Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 632–642Google Scholar
  3. Brachman RJ, Schmolze JG (1985) An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cogn Sci 9:171–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braine MDS (1998) Steps toward a mental-predicate logic. In: Braine MDS, O’Brien DP (eds) Mental logic. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 273–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bucciarelli M, Johnson-Laird PN (1999) Strategies in syllogistic reasoning. Cogn Sci 23:247–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandrasekaran B (2011) When is a bunch of marks on paper a diagram? Diagrams as homomorphic representations. Semiotica 186:69–87Google Scholar
  7. Dagan I, Dolan B, Magnini B, Roth D (2009) Recognizing textual entailment: rational, evaluation and approaches. Nat Lang Eng 15(4):i–xviiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flouris G, Huang Z, Pan JZ, Plexousakis D, Wache H (2006) Inconsistencies, negations and changes in ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 21st national conference on artificial intelligence. The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, pp 1295–1300Google Scholar
  9. Funt BV (1980) Problem-solving with diagrammatic representations. Artif Intell 13:201–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov BN (eds) (2001) The analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Geurts B, Van der Slik F (2005) Monotonicity and processing load. J Semant 22:97–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glasgow J, Narayanan NH, Chandrasekaran B (eds) (1995) Diagrammatic reasoning: cognitive and computational perspectives. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene SB (1992) Multiple explanations for multiply quantified sentences: Are multiple models necessary? Psychol Rev 99:184–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Harel D (1988) On visual formalisms. Commun ACM 31:514–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartley RT, Barnden JA (1997) Semantic networks: visualizations of knowledge. Trends Cogn Sci 1:169–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Itzik N, Reinhartz-Berger I (2014) SOVA—a tool for semantic and ontological variability analysis. In: Proceedings of CAiSE 2014 forum at the 26th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, CEUR, vol 1164, pp 177–184Google Scholar
  17. Johnson-Laird PN, Byrne RM, Tabossi P (1989) Reasoning by model: the case of multiple quantification. Psychol Rev 96:658–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khemlani S, Johnson-Laird PN (2012) Theories of the syllogism: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 138:427–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Khemlani S, Lotstein M, Johnson-Laird P (2014) A mental model theory of set membership. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, pp 2489–2494Google Scholar
  20. Kroger JK, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD, Johnson-Laird PN (2008) Distinct neural substrates for deductive and mathematical processing. Brain Res 1243:86–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mascarenhas S, Koralus P (2017) Illusory inferences with quantifiers. Think Reason 23:33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nguyen TAT, Power R, Piwek P, Williams S (2012) Measuring the understandability of deduction rules for OWL. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on debugging ontologies and ontology mappings, LECP 79, Linköping University Electronic Press, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  23. Nguyen TAT, Power R, Piwek P, Williams S (2013) Predicting the understandability of OWL inferences. In: Proceedings of the extended semantic web conference 2013, LNCS 7882. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 109–123Google Scholar
  24. Politzer G, Mercier H (2008) Solving categorical syllogisms with singular premises. Think Reason 14:434–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Politzer G, Bosc-Miné C, Sander E (2017) Preadolescents solve natural syllogisms proficiently. Cogn Sci 41:1031–1061CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ragni M, Sonntag T (2012) Preferences and illusions in quantified spatial relational reasoning. Cogn Process 13:289–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ragni M, Singmann H, Steinlein EM (2014) Theory comparison for generalized quantifiers. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, pp 1222–1227Google Scholar
  28. Ramakrishnan S, Vijayan A (2014) A study on development of cognitive support features in recent ontology visualization tools. Artif Intell Rev 41:595–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sato Y, Mineshima K (2015) How diagrams can support syllogistic reasoning: an experimental study. J Logic Lang Inf 24:409–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sato Y, Mineshima K (2016) Human reasoning with proportional quantifiers and its support by diagrams. In: Proceedings of diagrams 2016, LNCS 9781. Springer, Switzerland, pp 123–138Google Scholar
  31. Sato Y, Stapleton G, Jamnik M, Shams Z, Blake A (2017) How Network-based and set-based visualizations aid consistency checking in ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on visual information communication and interaction. ACM, New York, NY, pp 137–141Google Scholar
  32. Sato Y, Sugimoto Y, Ueda K (2018a) Real objects can impede conditional reasoning but augmented objects do not. Cogn Sci 42:691–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sato Y, Wajima Y, Ueda K (2018b) Strategy analysis of non-consequence inference with Euler diagrams. J Logic Lang Inf 27:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt-Schauß M, Smolka G (1991) Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artif Intell 48:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stapleton G, Compton M, Howse J (2017) Visualizing OWL 2 using diagrams. In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 245–253Google Scholar
  36. Steels L (1990) Exploiting analogical representations. Robot Auton Syst 6:71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stenning K (2002) Seeing reason: image and language in learning to think. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stenning K, Oberlander J (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cogn Sci 19:97–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stenning K, van Lambalgen M (2001) Semantics as a foundation for psychology: a case study of Wason’s selection task. J Logic Lang Inf 10:273–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sugiyama K, Misue K (1991) Visualization of structural information: automatic drawing of compound digraphs. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 21:876–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. W3C OWL Working Group (2012) OWL 2 web ontology language. Retrieved Dec 2017 from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Secure, Intelligent and Usable SystemsUniversity of BrightonBrightonUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations