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
. 2017 Jun 2:8:932.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00932. eCollection 2017.

Eye Movements Reveal Optimal Strategies for Analogical Reasoning

Affiliations

Eye Movements Reveal Optimal Strategies for Analogical Reasoning

Michael S Vendetti et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Analogical reasoning refers to the process of drawing inferences on the basis of the relational similarity between two domains. Although this complex cognitive ability has been the focus of inquiry for many years, most models rely on measures that cannot capture individuals' thought processes moment by moment. In the present study, we used participants' eye movements to investigate reasoning strategies in real time while solving visual propositional analogy problems (A:B::C:D). We included both a semantic and a perceptual lure on every trial to determine how these types of distracting information influence reasoning strategies. Participants spent more time fixating the analogy terms and the target relative to the other response choices, and made more saccades between the A and B items than between any other items. Participants' eyes were initially drawn to perceptual lures when looking at response choices, but they nonetheless performed the task accurately. We used participants' gaze sequences to classify each trial as representing one of three classic analogy problem solving strategies and related strategy usage to analogical reasoning performance. A project-first strategy, in which participants first extrapolate the relation between the AB pair and then generalize that relation for the C item, was both the most commonly used strategy as well as the optimal strategy for solving visual analogy problems. These findings provide new insight into the role of strategic processing in analogical problem solving.

Keywords: analogical reasoning; eye movements; individual differences; problem solving strategies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example analogy trial. Participants were asked to choose which item best fills the position of the question mark. Each trial contained four response choices: the target, a perceptual lure, a semantic lure, and an unrelated lure. The position of each response choice was randomized across trials. Letters and the response choice labels are for illustrative purposes only.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patterns of eye movements as predicted by the project-first, structure-mapping, and semantic-constraint strategies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Proportion of dwell time in each AOI per trial (A), proportion of first fixations on the response choices after having already fixated on the analogy terms (B), and proportion of fixation transitions between AOIs of interest (C). Error bars indicate 95% CI. S, Semantic lure; P, Perceptual lure; U, Unrelated lure; T, Target; RC, Response choices.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Correlations between strategy use and overall accuracy (mean percent correct). Use of the project-first strategy was positively correlated with accuracy (A), whereas use of the structure-mapping strategy was unrelated to accuracy (B), and use of semantic-constraint strategy was negatively correlated related with accuracy (C).
Figure 5
Figure 5
The proportion of first fixations on the response choices after having already fixated on the analogy terms, categorized by strategy. Error bars indicate 95% CI. S, Semantic lure; P, Perceptual lure; U, Unrelated lure; T, Target; RC, Response choices; PF, project-first; SM, structure-mapping; SC, semantic-constraint.

References

    1. Chalmers D. J., French R. M., Hofstadter D. R. (1992). High-level perception, representation, and analogy: a critique of artificial intelligence methodology. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 4, 185–211. 10.1080/09528139208953747 - DOI
    1. Cho S., Holyoak K. J., Cannon T. D. (2007). Analogical reasoning in working memory: resources shared among relational integration, interference, resolution, and maintenance. Memory Cogn. 35, 1445–1455. 10.3758/BF03193614 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Day S. B., Gentner D. (2007). Nonintentional analogical inference in text comprehension. Memory Cogn. 35, 39–49. 10.3758/BF03195940 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Doumas L. A., Hummel J. E., Sandhofer C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychol. Rev. 115, 1–43. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Falkenhainer B., Forbus K. D., Gentner D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artif. Intell. 41, 1–63. 10.1016/0004-3702(89)90077-5 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources