Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Feb 9:9:55.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00055. eCollection 2015.

Hemispheric differences in relational reasoning: novel insights based on an old technique

Affiliations

Hemispheric differences in relational reasoning: novel insights based on an old technique

Michael S Vendetti et al. Front Hum Neurosci. .

Abstract

Relational reasoning, or the ability to integrate multiple mental relations to arrive at a logical conclusion, is a critical component of higher cognition. A bilateral brain network involving lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices has been consistently implicated in relational reasoning. Some data suggest a preferential role for the left hemisphere in this form of reasoning, whereas others suggest that the two hemispheres make important contributions. To test for a hemispheric asymmetry in relational reasoning, we made use of an old technique known as visual half-field stimulus presentation to manipulate whether stimuli were presented briefly to one hemisphere or the other. Across two experiments, 54 neurologically healthy young adults performed a visuospatial transitive inference task. Pairs of colored shapes were presented rapidly in either the left or right visual hemifield as participants maintained central fixation, thereby isolating initial encoding to the contralateral hemisphere. We observed a left-hemisphere advantage for encoding a series of ordered visuospatial relations, but both hemispheres contributed equally to task performance when the relations were presented out of order. To our knowledge, this is the first study to reveal hemispheric differences in relational encoding in the intact brain. We discuss these findings in the context of a rich literature on hemispheric asymmetries in cognition.

Keywords: deductive; hemispheric specialization; reasoning; transitive inference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example trial from Study 2 (including the visual mask). Participants were shown three pairs of colored shapes. Following each pair, participants were shown a visual mask overlaying the previous shapes, and then a fixation cross. After the third pair was presented in a given trial, participants had up to 10 s to decide the correct linear order of two shapes based on the spatial relationships observed among the pairs. This is an example of a reordered trial, in which participants would presumably have to manipulate their memory of the pairs in order to deduce that the square goes on top of the pentagon. Study 1 was similar in design except for the absence of the visual mask presentations.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Average proportion correct as a function of hemisphere and ordering condition. A significant interaction was found such that when pairs of objects were presented in order, performance was significantly better when information was initially presented to the left versus the right hemisphere. However, no reliable difference was observed between hemispheres when pairs needed to be reordered in memory. Additionally, an overall main effect was found indicating that accuracy improved when pairs were initially encoded by the left hemisphere as opposed to the right hemisphere. (B) Average response time in milliseconds as a function of hemisphere and ordering condition, for correct trials. No reliable differences were observed for response time. **p < 0.01.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Accuracy as a function of ordering condition and number of times premise was presented in the left hemisphere (0, 1, 2, 3). For ordered trials, accuracy increased monotonically with the number of times a premise was presented in the left hemisphere. For reordered trials, a simple pattern was not observed; rather, accuracy decreased when premises were presented in the left hemisphere two times (i.e., on LRL and RLL trials) relative to one or three times. No effects were observed for response times.

References

    1. Acuna B. D., Eliassen J. C., Donoghue J. P., Sanes J. N. (2002). Frontal and parietal lobe activation during transitive inference in humans. Cereb. Cortex 12, 1312–1321.10.1093/cercor/12.12.1312 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andrews G., Halford G. S. (1998). Children’s ability to make transitive inferences: the importance of premise integration and structural complexity. Cogn. Dev. 13, 479–51310.1016/S0885-2014(98)90004-1 - DOI
    1. Ardolino G., Bossi B., Barbieri S., Priori A. (2005). Non-synaptic mechanisms underlie the after-effects of cathodal transcutaneous direct current stimulation of the human brain. J. Physiol. 568, 653–663.10.1113/jphysiol.2005.088310 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baldo J. V., Bunge S. A., Wilson S. M., Dronkers N. F. (2010). Is relational reasoning dependent on language? A voxel-based lesion symptom mapping study. Brain Lang. 113, 59–64.10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.004 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barbey A. K., Colom R., Paul E. J., Grafman J. (2014). Architecture of fluid intelligence and working memory revealed by lesion mapping. Brain Struct. Funct. 219, 485–494.10.1007/s00429-013-0512-z - DOI - PubMed