Figural Effects in Syllogistic Reasoning with Evaluation Paradigm: An Eye-Movement Study - Brain Informatics - page 106

Figural Effects in Syllogistic Reasoning with
Evaluation Paradigm: An Eye-Movement Study

Xiuqin Jia 1 , Shengfu Lu 1 , Ning Zhong 1 , 2 ,andYiyuYao 1 , 3

1 International WIC Institute, Beijing University of Technology
Beijing 100022, P.R. China
[e-mail], [e-mail]
2 Dept. of Life Science and Informatics, Maebashi Institute of Technology
Maebashi-City 371-0816, Japan
[e-mail]
3 Dept. of Computer Science, University of Regina
Regina S4S 0A2, Canada
[e-mail]

Abstract. Figural effects demonstrate that the influence on reasoning
performance derives from the figure of the presented syllogistic argu-
ments (Johnson-Laird and Bara, 1984). It has been reported that figure
P-M/M-S is easier to reason with than figure M-P/S-M with syllogistic
generation paradigm (Johnson-Laird, 1984), where M is the middle term,
S is the subject and P is the predicate of conclusion, respectively. How-
ever, the figural effects are still unclear in syllogistic evaluation paradigm.
In order to study such effects, we employed the figure M-P/S-M/S-P and
the figure P-M/M-S/S-P syllogistic evaluation tasks with 30 subjects us-
ing eye-movement. The results showed that figural effects that the figure
P-M/M-S/S-P was more cognitively demanding than the figure M-P/S-
M/S-P, occurred in major premise and conclusion for the early processes,
and in both premises and conclusion for late processes, rather than in mi-
nor premise reported by Espino et al (2005) that the figure P-M/M-S has
less cognitive load than the figure M-P/S-M with generation paradigm.
Additionally, pre-/post-conclusion viewing analysis found that for the in-
spection times of both premises the figure P-M/M-S/S-P took up more
cognitive resources than the figure M-P/S-M/S-P when after viewing the
conclusion. The findings suggested there were differences in figural effects
between evaluation and generation paradigm.

1 Introduction

Syllogistic reasoning is a form of deductive reasoning in which a logical conclusion
is drawn from premises (the major premise and the minor premise). For example,
Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: Some animals are human.
Conclusion: Some animals are mortal.
Each of the three distinct terms, “human,” “mortal,” and “animal, ” represents
a category. “Mortal” is the major term; “animal” is the minor term; the common