Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Sequential abductive reasoning is the process of finding the best explanation for a set of observations. Explanations can be multicausal and require the retrieval of previously found ones from memory. The theory of abductive reasoning (TAR) allows detailed predictions on what information is stored and retrieved from memory during reasoning. In the research to date, however, these predictions have never been directly tested. In this study, we tested process assumptions such as the construction of a mental representation from TAR using memory indexing, an eye-tracking method that makes it possible to trace the retrieval of explanations currently held in working memory. Gaze analysis revealed that participants encode the presented evidence (i.e., observations) together with possible explanations into memory. When new observations are presented, the previously presented evidence and explanations are retrieved. Observations that are not explained immediately are encoded as abstractly explained. Abstract explanations enter a refinement process in which they become concrete before they enter the situation model. With the memory indexing method, we were able to assess the process of information retrieval in abductive reasoning, which was previously believed to be unobservable. We discuss the results in the light of TAR and other current theories on the diagnostic reasoning process.

Keywords

Sequential abductive reasoning eye movements memory indexing process tracing mental representation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baumann

M. R. K.

Mehlhorn

Bocklisch

(2007). The activation of hypotheses during abductive reasoning. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 803–808). http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2007/docs/p803.pdf

Ferreira

Apel

Henderson

J. M.

(2008). Taking a new look at looking at nothing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.007

Glaholt

M. G.

Reingold

E. M.

(2011). Eye movement monitoring as a process tracing methodology in decision making research. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 4(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020692

Hayhoe

M. M.

Bensinger

D. G.

Ballard

D. H.

(1998). Task constraints in visual working memory. Vision Research, 38(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00116-8

Hedge

Leonards

(2013). Using eye movements to explore switch costs in working memory. Journal of Vision, 13(4), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.4.18

Horstmann

Ahlgrimm

Glöckner

(2009). How distinct are intuition and deliberation ? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(5), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1393729

Jahn

Braatz

(2014). Memory indexing of sequential symptom processing in diagnostic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 68, 59–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.11.002

Johansson

Holsanova

Holmqvist

(2006). Pictures and spoken descriptions elicit similar eye movements during mental imagery, both in light and in complete darkness. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 1053–1079. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000

Johnson

T. R.

Krems

J. F.

(2001). Use of current explanations in multicausal abductive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 25, 903–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(01)00059-3

10.

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

(1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4(1), 71–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(81)80005-5

11.

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

Byrne

R. M.

Schaeken

(1992). Propositional reasoning by model. Psychological Review, 99(3), 418–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.418

12.

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

Khemlani

S. S.

Goodwin

G. P.

(2015). Logic, probability, and human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(4), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.02.006

13.

Kintsch

(1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.

14.

Kintsch

van Dijk

T. A.

(1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.

15.

Klahr

Dunbar

(1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.

16.

Klichowicz

Scholz

Strehlau

Krems

J. F.

(2016, August). Differentiating between encoding and processing during diagnostic reasoning: An eye tracking study [Conference session]. 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA, United States.

17.

Laeng

Teodorescu

D. S.

(2002). Eye scanpaths during visual imagery reenact those of perception of the same visual scene. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2602

18.

Lange

N. D.

Thomas

R. P.

Davelaar

E. J.

(2012). Temporal dynamics of hypothesis generation: The influences of data serial order, data consistency, and elicitation timing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00215

19.

Meder

Mayrhofer

(2017). Diagnostic causal reasoning with verbal information. Cognitive Psychology, 96, 54–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.05.002

20.

Mehlhorn

Taatgen

N. A.

Lebiere

Krems

J. F.

(2011). Memory activation and the availability of explanations in sequential diagnostic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1391–1411. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023920

21.

Peng

Reggia

J. A.

(1990). Abductive inference models for diagnostic problem-solving. Springer-Verlag.

22.

Pylyshyn

(1998). The role of visual indexes in spatial vision and imagery [Backgound]. https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/docs/wright.PDF

23.

Rebitschek

F. G.

Krems

J. F.

Jahn

(2016). The diversity effect in diagnostic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 44(5), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0592-0

24.

Renkewitz

Jahn

(2012). Memory indexing: A novel method for tracing memory processes in complex cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1622–1639. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028073

25.

Richardson

D. C.

Altmann

G. T. M.

Spivey

M. J.

Hoover

M. A.

(2009). Much ado about eye movements to nothing: A response to Ferreira et al.: Taking a new look at looking at nothing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 235–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.006

26.

Richardson

D. C.

Kirkham

N. Z.

(2004). Multimodal events and moving locations: Eye movements of adults and 6-month-olds reveal dynamic spatial indexing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.46

27.

Rosner

von Helversen

(2019). Memory shapes judgments : Tracing how memory biases judgments by inducing the retrieval of exemplars. Cognition, 190, 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.004

28.

Scholz

Klichowicz

Krems

J. F.

(2018). Covert shifts of attention can account for the functional role of “eye movements to nothing.” Memory & Cognition, 46, 230–243. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0760-x

29.

Scholz

Krems

J. F.

Jahn

(2017). Watching diagnoses develop: Eye movements reveal symptom processing during diagnostic reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1398–1412. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1294-8

30.

Scholz

von Helversen

Rieskamp

(2015). Eye movements reveal memory processes during similarity- and rule-based decision making. Cognition, 136, 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.019

31.

Spivey

M. J.

Geng

J. J.

(2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65(4), 235–241.

32.

Thomas

R. P.

Dougherty

M. R.

Sprenger

A. M.

Harbison

J. I.

(2008). Diagnostic hypothesis generation and human judgment. Psychological Review, 115(1), 155–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.155

33.

Tseng

P. H.

Carmi

Cameron

I. G. M.

Munoz

D. P.

Itti

(2009). Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 9(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.7.4

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

Tracing current explanations in memory: A process analysis based on eye-tracking

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material