Abductive reasoning in cognitive neuroscience: weak and strong reverse inference

Abstract

Reverse inference is a crucial inferential strategy used in cognitive neuroscience to derive conclusions about the engagement of cognitive processes from patterns of brain activation. While widely employed in experimental studies, it is now viewed with increasing scepticism within the neuroscience community. One problem with reverse inference is that it is logically invalid, being an instance of abduction in Peirce's sense. In this paper, we offer the first systematic analysis of reverse inference as a form of abductive reasoning and highlight some relevant implications for the current debate. We start by formalising an important distinction that has been entirely neglected in the literature, namely the distinction between weak (strategic) and strong (justificatory) reverse inference. Then, we rely on case studies from recent neuroscientific research to systematically discuss the role and limits of both strong and weak reverse inference; in particular, we offer the first exploration of weak reverse inference as a discovery strategy within cognitive neuroscience.

Hooked on a thought: Associations between rumination and neural responses to social rejection in adolescent girls

“…In our discussion, we interpret the observed rumination-related neural activity based on putative cognitive functions associated with these regions, slower RT of girls with higher levels of rumination observed during the task, and distinctive psychological processes of ruminators identified in previous studies. It is important to note that because the putative cognitive functions (e.g., mentalizing, emotion dysregulation) linked to these regions were not directly measured, we make a “weak reverse inference” (i.e., reverse inference is used not to claim strong conclusions but to generate promising hypotheses) ( Calzavarini and Cevolani, 2022 ) on the cognitive functions underlying neural activity.…”

Breaking barriers: CEOs STEM educational background and corporate climate change disclosure

“…, 2023). Notably, the field of neuroscientific medicine supports the idea that individuals with well-developed critical thinking skills are more likely to have an inclination toward scientific disciplines (Calzavarini and Cevolani, 2022; Salehi et al. , 2022).…”

“…According to this line of reasoning, specialized education, such as a background in STEM, imbues leaders with innovative characteristics (Alderman et al. , 2022; Calzavarini and Cevolani, 2022), enabling the development of unique programs and techniques related to climate change disclosure (Guo et al. , 2022; Harjoto, 2023).…”

“…The stream of literature asserts that CEO education, particularly in the context of climate change, plays a crucial role in determining the extent of disclosure (Weber et al, 2014;Brooks and Oikonomou, 2018). According to this line of reasoning, specialized education, such as a background in STEM, imbues leaders with innovative characteristics (Alderman et al, 2022;Calzavarini and Cevolani, 2022), enabling the development of unique programs and techniques related to climate change disclosure (Guo et al, 2022;Harjoto, 2023). Furthermore, Guo et al (2022) posit that many studies investigating climate change disclosure are motivated by the characteristics of top management, particularly their educational backgrounds.…”

Skepticism about Recent Evidence That Psilocybin “Liberates” Depressed Minds

“…These overall concerns highlight increasingly acknowledged ambiguities in interpreting task-free fMRI, , which is unfortunately the standard in psychedelic research (note that the authors have also contributed to this unfortunate standard). In the absence of attempts to unify the cognitive and perceptual state of participants (with observable behavior for example), conclusions about brain changes and their relevance to the mind are often drawn based on reverse inference , and untethered by any behavioral data.…”