Relating Derived Relations as a Model of Analogical Reasoning: Reaction Times and Event-Related Potentials

Abstract

The current study aimed to test a Relational Frame Theory (RFT) model of analogical reasoning based on the relating of derived same and derived difference relations. Experiment 1 recorded reaction time measures of similar-similar (e.g., ''apple is to orange as dog is to cat'') versus different-different (e.g., ''he is to his brother as chalk is to cheese'') derived relational responding, in both speed-contingent and speed-noncontingent conditions. Experiment 2 examined the event-related potentials (ERPs) associated with these two response patterns. Both experiments showed similar-similar responding to be significantly faster than different-different responding. Experiment 2 revealed significant differences between the waveforms of the two response patterns in the left-hemispheric prefrontal regions; different-different waveforms were significantly more negative than similar-similar waveforms. The behavioral and neurophysiological data support the RFT prediction that, all things being equal, similar-similar responding is relationally ''simpler'' than, and functionally distinct from, differentdifferent analogical responding. The ERP data were fully consistent with findings in the neurocognitive literature on analogy. These findings strengthen the validity of the RFT model of analogical reasoning and supplement the behavior-analytic approach to analogy based on the relating of derived relations.

From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding

“…For example, a relational network containing two types of frames may produce higher response latencies, and different patterns of electroencephalogram (EEG) activity, than a network containing only one type (Barnes-Holmes, Regan et al, 2005). Furthermore, the extent to which a response has been derived in the past influences the probability of it being emitted quickly (Roche, Linehan, Ward, Dymond, & Rehfeldt, 2004) and accurately in the future (Healy et al, 2000).…”

“…Barnes & Hampson, 1997). For example, mutually entailing and relational framing abilities may be localized in the more posterior parts (see Barnes-Holmes, Staunton et al, 2005), with increasingly complex abilities, such as relating-relations, and relating relational networks, localized more in the anterior parts (see Barnes-Holmes, Regan et al, 2005). That is, increasingly complex AARRing abilities emerged as the neocortex evolved in modern humans (see Bickerton, 2007).…”

A Rose by Naming: How We May Learn How to Do It

“…Serious neuroscientific analyses involving pre-Naming imaging in children who originally lack Naming and post-Naming imaging might test this. Indeed, this type of investigation may be the most efficient, if not the only, way to test the validity of f/MRI investigations directly (see Barnes-Holmes et al, 2005, for an example of this type of investigation and Dickins, 2005, for a thoughtful discussion).…”

Transferencia de funciones sintácticas artificiales entre estímulos relacionados por equivalencia: Un estudio de potenciales cerebrales relacionados con eventos

“…Esta diferencia generaría un costo de procesamiento adicional para integrar los estímulos al contexto previo de la secuencia, que se vería reflejado en el potencial P600. Un mecanismo similar fue propuesto para explicar el aumento en el potencial N400 que se observa al comparar pares de estímulos relacionados por equivalencia con pares directamente relacionados por el entrenamiento en un paradigma de priming (Barnes-Holmes et al, 2005). En este caso, la activación del estímulo prime se propaga con mayor intensidad a los miembros de la clase directamente relacionados, y en menor grado a estímulos relacionados a través de nodos intervinientes, generando para éstos menor facilitación y mayores costos de procesamiento.…”

“…Al encontrar un estí-mulo equivalente en una posición gramati-calmente correcta, los sujetos deben ser capaces de evocar el estímulo original correspondiente y reconocer su pertenencia a la clase sintáctica esperada. Otra posibilidad es que las predicciones sobre los posibles elementos futuros se propaguen también a los estímulos relacionados por equivalencia, pero con menor intensidad debido a la distancia nodal entre ellos de manera análoga a lo que ocurre con el potencial N400 durante el priming indirec to (Barnes-Holmes et al, 2005), con lo cual su reconocimiento y procesamiento resultan más difíciles. En cualquier caso, el costo de las operaciones adicionales necesarias para integrar los estímulos equivalentes al contexto previo de la secuencia se vería reflejado en el P600.…”