Cargando…
How types of premises modulate the typicality effect in category-based induction: diverging evidence from the P2, P3, and LPC effects
Behavioural studies have indicated that semantic typicality influences processing time and accuracy during the performance of inductive reasoning (i.e., the typicality effect). The present study examines this effect by manipulating the types of premises and conclusions (i.e., general, typical, or at...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5159785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27982022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep37890 |
_version_ | 1782481818151288832 |
---|---|
author | Liang, Xiuling Chen, Qingfei Lei, Yi Li, Hong |
author_facet | Liang, Xiuling Chen, Qingfei Lei, Yi Li, Hong |
author_sort | Liang, Xiuling |
collection | PubMed |
description | Behavioural studies have indicated that semantic typicality influences processing time and accuracy during the performance of inductive reasoning (i.e., the typicality effect). The present study examines this effect by manipulating the types of premises and conclusions (i.e., general, typical, or atypical) at an electrophysiological level using a semantic category-based induction task. With regard to behavioural results, higher inductive strength was found in typical conclusions in all premise conditions, whereas a longer response time for atypical conclusions was only found in general and typical premise conditions. The ERP results had different response patterns: in the general premise condition, a larger P2, as well as a smaller P3 and LPC (500–600 ms), were elicited by atypical conclusions relative to typical ones; in the typical premise condition, a larger P2 and LPC (600–700 ms) were found for atypical conclusions; in the atypical premise condition, however, only a larger P2 was found for atypical conclusions. The divergent evidence for the typicality effect indicated that the processing of the typicality effect in general, and specific premise conditions, might involve different cognitive processes, such as resource allocation and inference violation, which yielded new insights into the neural underpinnings of the typicality effect in a category-based induction. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5159785 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-51597852016-12-21 How types of premises modulate the typicality effect in category-based induction: diverging evidence from the P2, P3, and LPC effects Liang, Xiuling Chen, Qingfei Lei, Yi Li, Hong Sci Rep Article Behavioural studies have indicated that semantic typicality influences processing time and accuracy during the performance of inductive reasoning (i.e., the typicality effect). The present study examines this effect by manipulating the types of premises and conclusions (i.e., general, typical, or atypical) at an electrophysiological level using a semantic category-based induction task. With regard to behavioural results, higher inductive strength was found in typical conclusions in all premise conditions, whereas a longer response time for atypical conclusions was only found in general and typical premise conditions. The ERP results had different response patterns: in the general premise condition, a larger P2, as well as a smaller P3 and LPC (500–600 ms), were elicited by atypical conclusions relative to typical ones; in the typical premise condition, a larger P2 and LPC (600–700 ms) were found for atypical conclusions; in the atypical premise condition, however, only a larger P2 was found for atypical conclusions. The divergent evidence for the typicality effect indicated that the processing of the typicality effect in general, and specific premise conditions, might involve different cognitive processes, such as resource allocation and inference violation, which yielded new insights into the neural underpinnings of the typicality effect in a category-based induction. Nature Publishing Group 2016-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5159785/ /pubmed/27982022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep37890 Text en Copyright © 2016, The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Article Liang, Xiuling Chen, Qingfei Lei, Yi Li, Hong How types of premises modulate the typicality effect in category-based induction: diverging evidence from the P2, P3, and LPC effects |
title | How types of premises modulate the typicality effect in category-based induction: diverging evidence from the P2, P3, and LPC effects |
title_full | How types of premises modulate the typicality effect in category-based induction: diverging evidence from the P2, P3, and LPC effects |
title_fullStr | How types of premises modulate the typicality effect in category-based induction: diverging evidence from the P2, P3, and LPC effects |
title_full_unstemmed | How types of premises modulate the typicality effect in category-based induction: diverging evidence from the P2, P3, and LPC effects |
title_short | How types of premises modulate the typicality effect in category-based induction: diverging evidence from the P2, P3, and LPC effects |
title_sort | how types of premises modulate the typicality effect in category-based induction: diverging evidence from the p2, p3, and lpc effects |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5159785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27982022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep37890 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liangxiuling howtypesofpremisesmodulatethetypicalityeffectincategorybasedinductiondivergingevidencefromthep2p3andlpceffects AT chenqingfei howtypesofpremisesmodulatethetypicalityeffectincategorybasedinductiondivergingevidencefromthep2p3andlpceffects AT leiyi howtypesofpremisesmodulatethetypicalityeffectincategorybasedinductiondivergingevidencefromthep2p3andlpceffects AT lihong howtypesofpremisesmodulatethetypicalityeffectincategorybasedinductiondivergingevidencefromthep2p3andlpceffects |