[en] Topological relations such as inside, outside, or intersection are ubiquitous to our spatial thinking. Here, we examined how people reason deductively with topological relations between points, lines, and circles in geometric diagrams. We hypothesized in particular that a counterexample search generally underlies this type of reasoning. We first verified that educated adults without specific math training were able to produce correct diagrammatic representations contained in the premisses of an inference. Our first experiment then revealed that subjects who correctly judged an inference as invalid almost always produced a counterexample to support their answer. Noticeably, even if the counterexample always bore a certain level of similarity to the initial diagram, we observed that an object was more likely to be varied between the two drawings if it was present in the conclusion of the inference. Experiments 2 and 3 then directly probed counterexample search. While participants were asked to evaluate a conclusion on the basis of a given diagram and some premisses, we modulated the difficulty of reaching a counterexample from the diagram. Our results indicate that both decreasing the counterexample density and increasing the counterexample distance impaired reasoning performance. Taken together, our results suggest that a search procedure for counterexamples, which proceeds object-wise, could underlie diagram-based geometric reasoning. Transposing points, lines, and circles to our spatial environment, the present study may ultimately provide insights on how humans reason about topological relations between positions, paths, and regions.
Disciplines :
Theoretical & cognitive psychology
Author, co-author :
Hamami, Yacin ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Traverses ; Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Mumma, John; Philosophy Department, California State University of San Bernardino
Amalric, Marie ; CAOs Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
Language :
English
Title :
Counterexample Search in Diagram-Based Geometric Reasoning.
Y.H. carried out the present work while holding a postdoctoral fellowship from the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO). This research has also been supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Fyssen Foundation to M.A.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Bibliography
Alcock, L., & Inglis, M. (2008). Doctoral students' use of examples in evaluating and proving conjectures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 111–129.
Amalric, M., Wang, L., Pica, P., Figueira, S., Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2017). The language of geometry: Fast comprehension of geometrical primitives and rules in human adults and preschoolers. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(1), e1005273.
Avigad, J., Dean, E., & Mumma, J. (2009). A formal system for Euclid's Elements. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 2(4), 700–768.
Bauer, M. I., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). How diagrams can improve reasoning. Psychological Science, 4(6), 372–378.
Besner, D., & Coltheart, M. (1976). Mental size scaling examined. Memory & Cognition, 4(5), 525–531.
Booth, J. L., & Koedinger, K. R. (2012). Are diagrams always helpful tools? Developmental and individual differences in the effect of presentation format on student problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 492–511.
Braine, M. D., & O'Brien, D. P. (Eds.). (1998). Mental logic. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bucciarelli, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Strategies in syllogistic reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 247–303.
Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2019). Strengths and inconsistencies in students' understanding of the roles of examples in proving. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 129–147.
Bundesen, C., & Larsen, A. (1975). Visual transformation of size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 214–220.
Burgess, N. (2008). Spatial cognition and the brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 77–97.
Byrne, R. M. J., Espino, O., & Santamaria, C. (1999). Counterexamples and the suppression of inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 347–373.
Byrne, R., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Spatial reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 564–575.
Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17(4), 391–416.
de Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12.
De Soto, C. B., London, M., & Handel, S. (1965). Social reasoning and spatial paralogic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(4), 513–521.
Dehaene, S., Izard, V., Pica, P., & Spelke, E. (2006). Core knowledge of geometry in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 311(5759), 381–384.
Dillon, M. R., Huang, Y., & Spelke, E. S. (2013). Core foundations of abstract geometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(35), 14191–14195.
Euclid. (1959). Elements (D. Densmore, Ed.). New York: Dover Books. (published as Euclid's Elements: all Thirteen Books Complete in One Volume, and translated by T. L. Heath).
Evans, J. S. B., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giaquinto, M. (2011). Crossing curves: A limit to the use of diagrams in proofs. Philosophia Mathematica, 19(3), 281–307.
Goodwin, G., & Johnson-Laird, P. (2005). Reasoning about relations. Psychological Review, 112(2), 468–493.
Griggs, R. A., & Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason's selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 73(3), 407–420.
Hart, Y., Dillon, M. R., Marantan, A., Cardenas, A. L., Spelke, E., & Mahadevan, L. (2018). The statistical shape of geometric reasoning. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 12906.
Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1084–1102.
Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 280–285.
Hegarty, M., & Stull, A. T. (2012). Visuospatial thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & J. Morrison Robert (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 606–630). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Heiser, J., & Tversky, B. (2006). Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagrams. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 581–592.
Izard, V., O'Donnell, E., & Spelke, E. S. (2014). Reading angles in maps. Child Development, 85(1), 237–249.
Izard, V., Pica, P., Spelke, E., & Dehaene, S. (2011). Flexible intuitions of Euclidean geometry in an Amazonian indigene group. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(24), 9782–9787.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). How we reason. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010). Mental models and human reasoning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(43), 18243–18250.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Hasson, U. (2003). Counterexamples in sentential reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 31(7), 1105–1113.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., & Legrenzi, M. S. (1972). Reasoning and a sense of reality. British Journal of Psychology, 63(3), 395–400.
Kao, Y., Douglass, S., Fincham, J., & Anderson, J. (2008). Traveling the second bridge: Using fMRI to assess an ACT-R model of geometry proof. Research report, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University.
Kline, M. (1972). Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times. New York: Oxford University Press.
Knauff, M. (1999). The cognitive adequacy of Allen's interval calculus for qualitative spatial representation and reasoning. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1(3), 261–290.
Knauff, M. (2013). Space to reason: A spatial theory of human thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Knauff, M., Strube, G., Jola, C., Rauh, R., & Schlieder, C. (2004). The psychological validity of qualitative spatial reasoning in one dimension. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4(2), 167–188.
Ko, Y.-Y., & Knuth, E. (2009). Undergraduate mathematics majors' writing performance producing proofs and counterexamples about continuous functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(1), 68–77.
Koedinger, K. R. (1991). Tutoring concepts, percepts, and rules in geometry problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
Koedinger, K. R. (1998). Conjecturing and argumentation in high school-geometry students. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), New directions in the teaching and learning of geometry (pp. 319–347). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. (1990). Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14(4), 511–550.
Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. (1993). Effective use of intelligent software in high school math classrooms. In P. Brna, S. Ohlsson, & H. Pain (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Proceedings of the world conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 241–248). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
Koedinger, K. R., & Terao, A. (2002). A cognitive task analysis of using pictures to support prealgebraic reasoning. In C. Schunn & W. Gray (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 24, pp. 542–547). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Kosslyn, S. M., Ball, T. M., & Reiser, B. J. (1978). Visual images preserve metric spatial information: Evidence from studies of image scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(1), 47–60.
Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007a). Formal notations are diagrams: Evidence from a production task. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 2033–2040.
Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007b). How abstract is symbolic thought? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 720–733.
Lange, K., Kühn, S., & Filevich, E. (2015). “Just Another Tool for Online Studies” (JATOS): An easy solution for setup and management of web servers supporting online studies. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0130834.
Larsen, A., & Bundesen, C. (1998). Effects of spatial separation in visual pattern matching: Evidence on the role of mental translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 719–731.
Macbeth, D. (2010). Diagrammatic reasoning in Euclid's Elements. In B. Van Kerkhove, J. De Vuyst, & J. P. Van Bendegem (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on mathematical practice (pp. 235–267). London: College Publications.
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108–114.
Manders, K. (2008). The Euclidean diagram. In P. Mancosu (Ed.), Philosophy of mathematical practice (pp. 80–133). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Matsuda, N., & VanLehn, K. (2004). GRAMY: A geometry theorem prover capable of construction. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 32(1), 3–33.
Miller, N. (2007). Euclid and his twentieth century rivals: Diagrams in the logic of Euclidean geometry. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Mueller, I. (1981). Philosophy of mathematics and deductive structure in Euclid's Elements. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mumma, J. (2006). Intuition formalized: Ancient and modern methods of proof in elementary geometry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
Mumma, J. (2012). Constructive geometrical reasoning and diagrams. Synthese, 186(1), 103–119.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Netz, R. (1999). The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics: A study in cognitive history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newcombe, N. (2018). Three kinds of spatial cognition. In J. Wixted (Ed.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (4th ed., pp. 1–31). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Novick, L. R., & Tversky, B. (1987). Cognitive constraints on ordering operations: The case of geometric analogies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1), 50–67.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2001). The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(8), 349–357.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Panza, M. (2012). The twofold role of diagrams in Euclid's plane geometry. Synthese, 186(1), 55–102.
Pedone, R., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2001). The use of diagrams in analogical problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 214–221.
Polk, T. A., & Newell, A. (1995). Deduction as verbal reasoning. Psychological Review, 102(3), 533–566.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Available at https://www.R-project.org/
Ragni, M., & Knauff, M. (2013). A theory and a computational model of spatial reasoning with preferred mental models. Psychological Review, 120(3), 561–588.
Rips, L. (1994). The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ritter, S., Anderson, J., Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive Tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 249–255.
RStudio Team. (2016). Rstudio: Integrated development environment for r [Computer software manual]. Boston, MA. Available at http://www.rstudio.com/
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701–703.
Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19(1), 97–140.
Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2008). Human reasoning and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stenning, K., & Yule, P. (1997). Image and language in human reasoning: A syllogistic illustration. Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 109–159.
Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & J. Morrison Robert (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 209–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18(1–3), 97–159.
Van der Henst, J.-B. (2002). Mental model theory versus the inference rule approach in relational reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 8(3), 193–203.
Wang, R. F., & Spelke, E. S. (2002). Human spatial representation: Insights from animals. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 376–382.
Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281.
Weber, K. (2009). How syntactic reasoners can develop understanding, evaluate conjectures, and generate counterexamples in advanced mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2–3), 200–208.
Zacks, J. M., & Michelon, P. (2005). Transformations of visuospatial images. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 4(2), 96–118.
Zaslavsky, O., & Ron, G. (1998). Students' understandings of the role of counter-examples. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 225–232). Stellenbosch: Program Committee of the 22nd PME Conference.
Zazkis, R., & Chernoff, E. J. (2008). What makes a counterexample exemplary? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(3), 195–208.
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. Read more
Save & Close
Accept all
Decline all
Show detailsHide details
Cookie declaration
About cookies
Strictly necessary
Performance
Strictly necessary cookies allow core website functionality such as user login and account management. The website cannot be used properly without strictly necessary cookies.
This cookie is used by Cookie-Script.com service to remember visitor cookie consent preferences. It is necessary for Cookie-Script.com cookie banner to work properly.
Performance cookies are used to see how visitors use the website, eg. analytics cookies. Those cookies cannot be used to directly identify a certain visitor.
Used to store the attribution information, the referrer initially used to visit the website
Cookies are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit. Websites use cookies to help users navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. Cookies that are required for the website to operate properly are allowed to be set without your permission. All other cookies need to be approved before they can be set in the browser.
You can change your consent to cookie usage at any time on our Privacy Policy page.