shape relations? (Ex 1) • Can vision and space shape more abstract relations? (Ex 2) • What’s responsible? (Ex 3) • Isolating Attention (Ex 4) • Theoretic Implications
Role-filler objects • They are order sensitive – “I am defending my dissertation” • Relation: Is-defending • Element 1: me • Element 2: my dissertation
Is focused on the roles that things play, rather than the features they posses • Requires one to sometimes ignore statistical regularities (features) in favor of role-base similarities
like relations – Relations are judged to be more meaningful than feature based matches (Gentner, 1988) • Relations are very difficult to think about – Tax working memory (e.g., Viskontas et al., 2004) • So how can we promote relational reasoning and shape its trajectory?
(1994): reading stories can remind people of stories read earlier if there are structural similarities between them – Schunn & Dunbar (1996): solving relational problems can make solving structurally- consistent problems easier later on • Seems possible
(2001) • Lexical decision task with letter strings and words • Later pairs could exemplify same relations as earlier pairs • No priming found unless explicit direction given – Bassock et al., (2008) • Word pairs paired with addition facts • Obligatory activation when word pairs were semantically aligned (e.g., “tulips-daises”)
are structured • Basic set of elements that are compositional • Abstract and discrete (Markman & Dietrich, 2000) • E.g., SMT (Gentner, 1983)/SME (Falkenhainer, Forbus, & Gentner; 1986, 1989) – Relations are analogs to predicate calculus » Attends ( you, presentation ) – Reasoning about relations is guided by structural constraints • Priming takes place in a “reminding stage” unique from the reasoning stage which runs in parallel and on features
feature sets • Build into propositional structures across layers of nodes • Representations coded as roles and objects – E.g., “Katherine gets her PhD” • passer(Katherine) + passed(PhD) • Binds through temporal asynchrony
content – That content can be activated • Could be attention based – Relational roles and fillers get fired at different times – Could changing firing order affect recognition and reasoning?
1992) • E.g., Richardson et al (2003): recognition times were faster when object images were presented congruently with verb image schemas • E.g., Pedone et al., (2001): diagrammatic differences affect Duncker problem solutions – Visual Attention • Grant & Spivey (2003) on the Duncker problem – Thomas & Lleras (2007)
using visuospatial cues while performing tasks that require relational competency • To then determine what mechanisms might be responsible for that priming
spatial relations (above and below) can be primed on a feedback-based category-learning task using a subtle prime – Categories were made up of simple geometric shapes and their spatial locations on the x and y axes
the online system (SONA) and offered course credit for participation. – Thirteen of these participants were not included in final calculations due to lack of learning. – Resulted in 92 reported participants
they may occasionally see some blinking “dots”. – The priming dots could appear in a vertical alignment or a horizontal fashion, blinking on and off alternatively • They were white circles with a thin black outline and had a radius of 15 pixels • One would appear for 500ms, then blink off. A gray screen would be shown for 100ms, then the other dot would blink on for another 500ms.
computer and told: – They were going to see pairs of shapes – Each pair would be positioned according to some “rule” – If they thought a pair followed the “rule” they pressed “A”, if they thought it did not follow the “rule, they pressed “L” – They would get feedback with every key press – So, they would not be told the rule, but needed to determine it over the course of the experiment
with a value from the other for the training phase and then associated with “correct”. The opposite was associated with incorrect. – E.g., they could see A/C and B/D combinations OR A/D and B/C combinations – Thus, either rule could be learned A/C B/D A/D B/C
the same type – E.g., A/D, A/D, A/D, A/D, A/D, A/D, A/D, A/ D… random • Specified by Clapper (2009) • Counterbalanced across participants • After the initial training sequence, the program counted until participants correctly classified 10 exemplars in a row.
• Told to use exactly the same rule • If in a priming condition, all priming stopped. • Then presented with 7 exemplars of each possible variable combinations – They would see A/C, A/D, B/C, and B/D exemplars.
than 3 inconsistent responses were made across the 14 novel pairings – Exception: both rules were reported (such data would look analogous to learning neither) • They were considered to have learned both rules only when they explicitly reported both, and made no more than three inconsistent responses based on both rules.
13 7 15 Vertical Rule Learned 7 17 9 Both Rules Learned 11 5 8 No Rules Learned 4 5 4 A significant number of participants learned the rule associated with the presented prime. = 10.433, p < .05 € X2
and relational reasoning can be primed • Priming can be quite subtle – Visuo-spatial and attention inputs are sufficient for this effect • Open Questions – Generalizability of findings
more abstract relations? • More specifically: Can visuospatial priming affect the probability of making a relational mapping under time constraints by exploiting that relation’s image schema?
line-drawings adapted from Richland et al. (2006) • Normed to have 6 “objects” each • 2 images per relation, creating a “base” analog and a “target” analog – Base shown on top, target shown on bottom – An object in the top was circled in red, and participants had to select the thing in the bottom image that was “doing the same thing” as the circled thing.
previous experiment and participants performed at ceiling (Livins & Doumas, in press) • So, can we alter the amount of time that someone needs to be exposed to a crossmapping analogy problem by priming the image schema of that relation?
Used 2 computers • One for the analogy task, one for priming • Participants alternated between them – The priming computer was described as a “ball counting task” – Dots would blink on an off in an alternating pattern • 10 dots would appear in total • A random number would be red • Participants were told to count the red dots only
eye movements required to track them would be congruent or incongruent with the image schema of the verb directly following – Participants were assigned to either a congruent or incongruent condition – Resulted in a 5X2 factorial design 400 500 600 700 800 Congruent Prime Incongruent Prime
involved one ball counting task followed by 1 analogy problem – No priming (verbs used did not show strong image schemas) – 4 were crossmappings, 4 were not • If a participant successfully completed the training they moved onto the test trials – 24 test cycles – Horizontal and vertical verbs were depicted with crossmappings, while fillers were not
appears to affect the presentation time required for completing a relational crossmapping – In other words, it doesn’t just affect how quickly you can complete the problem, but it can affect whether you complete it at all • A relation’s features are important on an ongoing basis • Open Question: – How does the priming occur?
priming effects observed in the previous experiments • More specifically: To prime an image schema and the visual attention needed to view a stimulus in opposite directions, and observe which one overpowers the other
2 • Only difference was that it could be – Congruent with representation and incongruent with attention – Incongruent with representation and congruent with attention
content-based priming • A few possible explanations – Non-prototypical representation is more difficult to recognize – Representational priming of relations isn’t possible • Role of attention in relational priming still needs to be explored
visual attention and relational recognition • Specific Goal: To determine whether the first item of fixation shapes relational recognition in pictorial scenes – First look for correlation – Second look for cause
with reference to one of the primary relations – Only “actor” and “patient” answers were allowed • Eye tracking data was used to find the items of first fixation
• Visual attention is related to relational recognition • This is not just the case for spatial relationships (Franconeri et al., 2012) • These findings are consistent with DORA
Doumas, 2015) • Better understand the relationship between visuospatial processing and relational reasoning • Use of priming in more applied contexts – Math-learning
Philosophy, Psychology, and Language Sciences David Noelle UC Merced Department of Cogni+ve and Informa+on Sciences Rick Dale UC Merced Department of Cogni+ve and Informa+on Sciences And…. Teenie Matlock Michael Spivey Lindsay Richland David Landy Till Bergmann Aaron Hamer Andrew Hill Alexandria Pabst Jose Balsells Ashley Miller
debriefed each participant and asked them – 1) What rule they learned. • Participants were generally able to explicitly state their rule – 2) What they thought the experiment was about. • No one made an explicit connection between the priming and the task
reasoning based on features when circumstances are ideal (Markman & Gentner, 1983) • Relational reasoning is easily disrupted though – It breaks down when working memory is taxed (Halford et al, 1998; Waltz et al., 1999) – It breaks down with some times of brain damage or distraction (Viskontas et al., 2004) – It breaks down under stress (Vendetti et al., 2012) • It can be hard to quantify these things • Time pressure may be related to stress, and may interrupt relational reasoning, and is easily quantifiable
klivins
uranoken
denkiwakame
sciencetokyo
ichiroc
terasawat
pawan_pharm
akiraasano
juanmartin2026
masakiokuda
eller86
cassininazir
charlesmeaden
bethany
mayunak
tmiket
eileencodes
lara
signer
denniskardys
uxyall
sabderemane
jnunemaker
