Visual imagery can impede reasoning

Knauff, Markus; Johnson‐Laird, P. N.

doi:10.3758/bf03194937

Cited by 149 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is feasible but not necessary (41). Individuals distinguish between relations that elicit visual images, such as dirtier than, those that elicit spatial relations, such as in front of, and those that are abstract, such as smarter than (42). Their reasoning is slowest from relations that are easy to visualize.…”

Section: Iconsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental models and human reasoning

Johnson‐Laird

2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

365

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To be rational is to be able to reason. Thirty years ago psychologists believed that human reasoning depended on formal rules of inference akin to those of a logical calculus. This hypothesis ran into difficulties, which led to an alternative view: reasoning depends on envisaging the possibilities consistent with the starting point-a perception of the world, a set of assertions, a memory, or some mixture of them. We construct mental models of each distinct possibility and derive a conclusion from them. The theory predicts systematic errors in our reasoning, and the evidence corroborates this prediction. Yet, our ability to use counterexamples to refute invalid inferences provides a foundation for rationality. On this account, reasoning is a simulation of the world fleshed out with our knowledge, not a formal rearrangement of the logical skeletons of sentences.H uman beings are rational-a view often attributed to Aristotle-and a major component of rationality is the ability to reason (1). A task for cognitive scientists is accordingly to analyze what inferences are rational, how mental processes make these inferences, and how these processes are implemented in the brain. Scientific attempts to answer these questions go back to the origins of experimental psychology in the 19th century. Since then, cognitive scientists have established three robust facts about human reasoning. First, individuals with no training in logic are able to make logical deductions, and they can do so about materials remote from daily life. Indeed, many people enjoy pure deduction, as shown by the world-wide popularity of Sudoku problems (2). Second, large differences in the ability to reason occur from one individual to another, and they correlate with measures of academic achievement, serving as proxies for measures of intelligence (3). Third, almost all sorts of reasoning, from 2D spatial inferences (4) to reasoning based on sentential connectives, such as if and or, are computationally intractable (5). As the number of distinct elementary propositions in inferences increases, reasoning soon demands a processing capacity exceeding any finite computational device, no matter how large, including the human brain.

show abstract

Section: Iconsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental models and human reasoning

Johnson‐Laird

2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

365

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a debate about the similarities and differences between mental models and visual images (Schwartz 1996;Liu and Stasko 2010), as well as about the form of their internal representation (Pylyshyn 1973;Kosslyn and Pomerantz 1977;Knauff and Johnson-Laird 2002). Visual imagery deals with processes that are involved in generating, examining, and manipulating visual images in the mind.…”

Section: Mental Models and Visual Imagerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulation of mental models of anatomy in interventional radiology and its consequences for design of human–computer interaction

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventional radiology procedures require extensive cognitive processing from the physician. A set of these cognitive functions are aimed to be replaced by technology in order to reduce the cognitive load. However, limited knowledge is available regarding mental processes in interventional radiology. This research focuses on identifying mental model-related processes, in particular during percutaneous procedures, useful to improve image guidance during interventions. Ethnographic studies and a prototype-based study were conducted in order to perform a task analysis and to identify working strategies and cognitive processes. Data were compared to theories from visual imagery. The results indicate a high level of complexity of mental model construction and manipulation, in particular when mentally comparing mental model knowledge with radiology images on screen (e.g., to steer a needle correctly). Regarding current interface support, most difficult is the interpretation and selection of oblique views. New interface principles are needed to bring cognitive demands within reasonable human range, and also accompanying cognitive work strategies should be developed.

show abstract

“…More compelling still is evidence that congenitally blind individuals seem to be able to construct spatially based mental models during reasoning despite their lack of visual experience (e.g., Fleming, Ball, Ormerod, & Collins;Knauff & May, 2006). Yet another line of evidence comes from studies demonstrating that visual mental imagery invoked by problem contents can actually hinder people's capacity to construct and use the abstract spatial models necessary for effective reasoning-the so-called visual imagery impedance hypothesis (e.g., Knauff & Johnson-Laird, 2002;Knauff & May, 2006;Knauff & Schlieder, 2005; see also Bacon, Handley, & McDonald, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%