Relational complexity influences analogical reasoning ability

Abstract

Human language without analogy is like a zebra without stripes. The ability to understand analogies, or to engage in relational reasoning, has been argued to be an important distinction between the cognitive abilities of human and non-human animals. Current studies have failed to robustly show that animals can perform more complex, relational discriminations, in part because such tests rely on linguistic or symbolic experiences, and therefore are not suitable for evaluating analogical reasoning in animals. We report on a methodological approach allowing for direct comparisons of analogical reasoning ability across species. We show that human participants spontaneously make analogical discriminations with minimal verbal instructions, and that the ability to reason analogically is affected by analogical complexity. Furthermore, performance on our task correlated with participants' fluid intelligence scores. These results show the nuance of analogical reasoning abilities by humans, and provide a means of robustly comparing this capacity across species.

Keywords: Biological sciences; Cognitive neuroscience; Neuroscience.

Graphical abstract

Figure 1

Experimental stimuli and procedure (A) Example of the experiment display during First Dimension Training. Text labels, with the exception of the word “Score”, have been added for clarity and did not appear during the actual experiment. This is an example of a “Different Trial” for a participant first trained with the Shape dimension. The circle shape is correct, as it has a different shape than the probe stimulus. The “Score” represents the running total of the participant’s accumulated accuracy over the experiment. (B) Examples of the possible colors, shapes, and patterns of stimuli. There were 8 levels of each stimuli, in addition to one “neutral” level used in earlier training phases (Color: “White”; Shape: “Amorphous”; Pattern: “Filled ”).

Figure 2

Distribution of the number of correct responses by number of individuals The dashed vertical line indicates chance, as determined by a binomial response.

Figure 3

Proportion of correct trials during the Triple Combination Testing The proportion correct is based on the number of dimensions differing (i.e., WRC) between the exemplar stimuli. Error bars show Standard Error of the Mean.

Figure 4

Proportion of correct responses for individual questions in the Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Sets A (1–12), B (13–24), and C (25–36)