Susceptibility to distraction during analogical reasoning in schizophrenia

Kucwaj, Hanna; Chuderski, Adam

doi:10.1016/j.scog.2019.100170

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings might contribute to an important debate on the nature of distraction in analogical reasoning. Is a higher proneness to distraction related to relatively elementary cognitive abilities such as poor inhibitory control, as is often suggested in the case of children (e.g., Morrison et al, 2006 ) and clinical groups (Krawczyk et al, 2008 ; Kucwaj & Chuderski, 2020 )? Or is it, rather, tied to difficulties at a more complex level of processing related to problem representation (e.g., problem comprehension and relation abstraction)?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Existing evidence suggests that error rates would be much higher in children and in older adult samples (e.g., Byczewska-Konieczny et al, 2019 ; Richland et al, 2006 ; Thibaut & French, 2016 ), and it is likely that the response patterns would then change (e.g., children would infrequently select relational distractors, but more often consider perceptual distractors). In clinical groups, in which participants’ certain mental faculties are distorted, the distortion may be reflected in their specific error patterns (e.g., a large rate of semantic distractors reflecting distorted semantic processing in schizophrenia patients; Kucwaj & Chuderski, 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to their framing (typically non-verbal problems, including familiar situations and objects) and ecological validity (resemblance to making real-life analogies), four-term analogies and scene analogies have been highly useful for studies on healthy adults (e.g., Chuderska & Chuderski, 2014;Waltz et al, 2000) and children (e.g., Richland et al, 2006;Richland & Burchinal, 2013;Thibaut et al, 2010), as well as in various clinical groups (e.g., Krawczyk et al, 2008Krawczyk et al, , 2010Krawczyk et al, , 2014Kucwaj & Chuderski, 2020;Morrison et al, 2004). Both paradigms are well suited for introducing precise experimental manipulations aimed at uncovering mechanisms of distraction in analogy.…”

Section: Paradigms To Investigate Analogical Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the crucial factors that affects solving four-term analogies is the presence of distractors among the response options (e.g., Krawczyk et al, 2008;Kucwaj & Chuderski, 2020;Thibaut et al, 2010). In the most typical version of distraction condition, the response options comprise the correct option as well as either a semantic distractor and two unrelated objects (e.g., Glady et al, 2017;Krawczyk et al, 2008;Thibaut & French, 2016), or a semantic distractor, a perceptual distractor, and one unrelated object (e.g., Starr et al, 2018;Whitaker et al, 2018;Vendetti et al, 2017).…”

Section: Four-term Analogy Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Various sources of distraction during analogical reasoning

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reasoning by analogy requires mapping relational correspondence between two situations to transfer information from the more familiar (source) to the less familiar situation (target). However, the presence of distractors may lead to invalid conclusions based on semantic or perceptual similarities instead of on relational correspondence. To understand the role of distraction in analogy making, we examined semantically rich four-term analogies (A:B::C:?) and scene analogies, as well as semantically lean geometric analogies and the matrix task tapping general reasoning. We examined (a) what types of lures were most distracting, (b) how the two semantically rich analogy tasks were related, and (c) how much variance in the scores could be attributed to general reasoning ability. We observed that (a) in four-term analogies the distractors semantically related to C impacted performance most strongly, as compared to the perceptual, categorical, and relational distractors, but the two latter distractor types also mattered; (b) distraction sources in four-term and scene analogies were virtually unrelated; and (c) general reasoning explained the largest part of variance in resistance to distraction. The results suggest that various sources of distraction operate at different stages of analogical reasoning and differently affect specific analogy paradigms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Paradigms To Investigate Analogical Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Four-term Analogy Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Various sources of distraction during analogical reasoning

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crucially for the current topic, existing reports on distractibility during analogical reasoning in schizophrenia remain inconclusive (e.g. Krawczyk et al, 2014 ; Kucwaj and Chuderski, 2020 ), partially due to small sample sizes (from 13 to 30 patients) as well as the lack of group matching. The present study intended to fill this very gap.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%