View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Belief bias in conditional reasoning - an fMRI study.
Matt Roser, Jonathan Evans, Nick McNair, Giorgio Fuggetta, Dries Trippas
RES-062-23-3285
Title
Jonathan Evans
Giorgio Fuggetta
Marie-Stephanie Cahart
Nick McNair
Lucas Michaelides
Dries Trippas
Belief bias in conditional reasoning - an fMRI study. Collaborators
• Many cognitive biases influence reasoning and decision making
• Performance on reasoning tasks often diverges from normative correctness but at least some people can reason analytically on these tasks
• We studied Belief Bias in conditional reasoning. This is manifest as a tendency to endorse more inferences derived from believable conditional statements, regardless of logical validity
• In the dual-process framework – type 1(intuitive) processes cause the belief bias which may or may not be overridden by type 2(reflective) processes
• Individuals of higher cognitive ability (and WMC) are more likely to inhibit the effects of believability in conditional reasoning, under the right conditions
Intro to BB
Belief bias in conditional inference
• We studied conditional reasoning while scanning with fMRI - In addition, we collected IQ, working-memory and measures of rational thinking disposition from all of our participants • Research questions - what neural systems are involved in conditional reasoning?
- how is believability processed in the brain? - what distinguishes those more or less susceptible to belief bias in terms of
neural activity?
- in particular, do those showing less belief bias, show more evidence of inhibition and/or more evidence of engagement of analytic reasoning
Intro to BB
Method and research questions
• Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus (IFG) – inhibition • Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) – working memory • Ventromedial cortex – belief
• VLPFC and connected posterior (temporal) areas
Brain areas of interest
Harris, Kaplan, Curiel, Bookheimer, Iacoboni, & Cohen (2009). PLoS One, 4(10), e7272.
Goel, & Dolan (2003). Cognition, 87(1), 11-22.
Barbey, Koenigs & Grafman (2013). Cortex, 49(5), 1195-1205.
O’Reilly, R. C. (2010). Trends in neurosciences, 33(8), 355-361.
Brain areas of interest
Believable MP
If car ownership increases then traffic congestion will get worse
Car ownership increases
Therefore, Traffic congestion gets worse
---
Believable DA
If jungle deforestation continues then gorillas will become extinct
Jungle deforestation does not continue
Therefore, gorillas do not become extinct
Unbelievable MT
If fast food is taxed then childhood obesity will increase
Childhood obesity does not increase
Therefore, fast food is not taxed
---
Unbelievable AC
If the lottery prize-money increases then fewer people will buy tickets
Fewer people buy tickets
Therefore, lottery prize-money increases
• Three-term conditional statements comprised the Major Premise (MajP), Minor Premise (minP), and Conclusion (C)
• Conditionals described causal relationships about the world
• Half of the MajP statements were ‘believable’, half ‘unbelievable’
Stimuli and Task Stimuli
• N = 51
• 72 x experimental trials in 3 x blocks of 24 – Half Un/believable
– Half In/valid
– Each MajP was shown twice: 1 x Valid and 1 x Invalid
• 36 x baseline-task trials in 2 x blocks of 18
Stimuli and Task
Exp BL Exp BL Exp
Task
A trial
• Split presentation allows separation of the sentence containing the belief content (the major premise) from the content that allows reasoning to begin (the minor premise and conclusion)
Major Premise
+
1 sec
4-6 sec
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion
Response
+
3-5 sec
Confidence
Response
Task2
Reasoning Condition:
• Participants shown an example
• Assume the premises are true
• Determine whether the conclusion must necessarily follow by logic
• Two-button choice response – 15 seconds
Baseline Condition:
• Participants shown an example - three unrelated premises
• Check for repetitions of verbs – one versus none or two
• Two-button choice response – 15 seconds
Instructions Instructions
Baseline statements
If jungle deforestation continues then gorillas will become extinct
Foreign investment is encouraged
Therefore, Prince Charles will become the king
If fertility treatment improves then the world population will rise
Sea levels rise
Therefore, business practices will improve
“YES”
“NO”
Baseline
• A tendency to treat inferences from believable conditionals as logically valid was observed
Acceptance Rates: Overall
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
MP MT AC DA Overall
Believable
Unbelievable
MP MT AC DA Overall
Believable 97.6 43.7 43.1 75.6 65.0
Unbelievable 90.1 34.3 36.6 61.5 55.6
Belief: F(1,49)= 25.80, p< .001
Form: F(3,147)= 80.24, p< .001
MP > DA > AC = MT
Acceptance rates
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
MP MT AC DA Overall
Believable
Unbelievable
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
MP MT AC DA Overall
Believable
Unbelievable
Low IQ High IQ
Belief*IQ: F(1,49)= 5.35, p= .025
Low IQ: Believable > Unbelievable
High IQ: Believable = Unbelievable
Form*IQ: F(3,147)= 6.53, p= .001
Low IQ: MP > DA = AC = MT (DA > MT)
High IQ: MP > DA > AC = MT
Acceptance Rates: Low / High IQ Low/High IQ
IQ and Belief Bias
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
80 90 100 110 120 130
Be
lief
Bia
s
WASI IQ Score
Pearson’s r: -.31 (p< .05)
IB and BB correlation
Major Premise
+
1 sec
4-6 sec
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion
Response
+
3-5 sec
Confidence
Response
BOLD modelled for major premise (P1) and for entire argument (PALL)
fMRI Data Model Model
• Reasoning Task > Control for Major premise (P1) and Entire Argument (PAll)
• Contrasted Believable/Unbelievable for Major premise and Entire Argument • Correlate Belief-Bias index with extracted signal strength for each ROI
• Correction for Multiple Comparisons
– Voxel-level: p < .001 uncorrected
– Cluster-level: p < .05 FDR corrected
Processing and Analyses • High-pass filter – cutoff 128s • Smooth with a 6mm FWHM kernel • Normalisation to MNI template • Six motion regressors were included (3x translation; 3x rotation) • Temporal derivatives not included • Four subjects excluding from analysis due to functional/movement artifacts • Three subjects excluded on behavioural grounds (accepted or rejected all)
Processing and analysis
P1 > Control Task
Left Middle Temporal gyrus – Temporal pole Left Inferior Parietal cortex - Angular gyrus Left Inferior Frontal cortex (BA 44) R Hemisphere homologues show lesser activity Left SMA, Dorsomedial PFC Bilateral ventromedial frontal Right Inferior frontal (BA 45)
P1 > Control contrast
P1: Unbelievable > Believable Left and Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus Right more ventral BA 45/47 Left TPJ
Ventral and Dorsal Anterior cingulate
P1: Believable > Unbelievable
P1 Believability contrast
PAll > Control Task
PAll: Unbelievable > Believable
Left Dorsolateral PFC BA 44 BA 8 and BA 9
Left and right middle frontal gyrus BA 44/45 Left and right parietal lobe
PAll Believability contrast
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
-20 0 20 40 60
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-20 0 20 40 60
Belief Bias: PAll Unbelievable > PAll Believable
Left PPC
Left MFG
Pearson’s r: .512 (p< .001)*
Pearson’s r: .613 (p< .001)*
Index of belief effect: Believable – Unbelievable endorsement rates
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-20 0 20 40 60
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-20 0 20 40 60
Right PPC
Right MFG
Pearson’s r: .642 (p< .001)*
Pearson’s r: .591 (p< .001)*
Index of belief effect: Believable – Unbelievable endorsement rates
Belief Bias: PAll Unbelievable > PAll Believable
• Lateral inferior-frontal areas were differentially active according to the believability of the major premise
• Involvement of representational and inhibitory mechanisms at an early stage of the trial invoked by the presentation of belief-laden material when participants are instructed to reason deductively.
• Dorsolateral prefrontal and parietal regions were differentially activated by believability when all premises available for inference
• Individual differences in the degree of belief bias correlated strongly with functional activation in DLPFC and PPC at the later stage of the trial.
• Individual differences in the degree of belief bias are reflected in later processes of premise integration which draw heavily on working memory.
• Areas show greater activity with unbelievable materials – demands on them are greater when reasoning with unbelievable material.
• People who are more susceptible to belief bias show a greater degree of differential demand on these regions when believability is manipulated.
Summary
• These results are consistent with dual-process accounts of reasoning. They imply an initial processing of belief that is actively inhibited (according to instructions) but which can determine responses if WM- demanding processes are insufficient Believability modulated activity in IFG/Temporal network and DLPFC/Parietal network under different stimulus conditions (P1,PAll) Locus of BB effect in latter stage of premise integration and manipulation (PAll), which draws heavily on WM and activates DLPFC/PPC, consistent with negative correlation between IQ/WM and BB.
Conclusions
Reinstatement of inference in opposition to belief Greatest in high IQ, leading to less BB Low IQ experience relatively greater demand on WM resources when reasoning with unbelievable materials and are less able to reinstate the valid inference
Inference follows
No
Withhold
Yes
Believable?
Yes
Draw
No
Withhold
Check reasoning
Yes
Reinstate Draw
No Withhold
Within-trial rTMS in Conditional Reasoning TMS
Within-trial rTMS in Conditional Reasoning • Investigate stages of Major-Premise (MajP) processing (believability apparent) and
Minor-Premise (minP) (Between subjects) • Investigate functional regions such as DLPFC (working memory) and IFG (inhibition),
informed by group fMRI de-normalised to individual
Cross these two factors in a 2x2 design: MajP – IFG MajP – DLPFC minP – IFG minP – DLPFC • MajP - Decontextualisation of materials and the suppression of belief may occur
following the MajP. • minP - Effortful combination of premises and the derivation of a conclusion • An effect of rTMS over IFG for MajP, but not for minP, coupled with an effect of rTMS
over DLPFC for minP but not for MajP would doubly dissociate the MajP and minP stages and inform on processing in conditional reasoning
…
0 -1000 -500
…
If DEAD then BREATHING (1 sec) DEAD (1 sec) BREATHING
Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion
(Consequent)
Within-trial rTMS in Conditional Reasoning
Recommended