Mismatches in Premises and Conclusion Affect Deductive Reasoning: A tDCS-ERP Study

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to examine the interfering effect of mismatches on deductive reasoning, measured both behaviorally and through event-related potentials (ERP), and whether anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the left prefrontal cortex (PFC) reduces this effect. Materials and Methods: This study involved 27 healthy right-handed participants, including 11 women, with a mean age of 27.21 ± 6.76 years. Anodal stimulation was applied to the left PFC, while a cathode was placed on the right mastoid. All participants completed inference tasks under both sham and anodal stimulation conditions. Within-group comparisons were conducted to analyze behavioral performance and ERP recordings, which were compared between the sham and anodal stimulation conditions. Results: The results showed that the response rate for deductive inference tasks with the highest levels of mismatch significantly increased after anodal stimulation compared to sham stimulation. However, there was no significant difference in reaction times between the two stimulation methods. Notably, the highest N2 wave in the frontal region was observed during tasks with the greatest level of mismatch. However, no significant differences in N2 amplitude or latency associated with anodal stimulation were detected. Conclusion: The findings of the study indicated that anodal tDCS has a limited effect on inference tasks that involve different levels of mismatch. This may be due to a ceiling effect caused by selecting a relatively simple form of inference due to the control of confounding variables.

Keywords

• Effect
• Deductive Reasoning
• Prefrontal Cortex
• Transcranial Electrical Stimulation
• Event-Related Potential

References

1. O’Brien DP, Dias MG, Roazzi A, Braine MD. A case study in the mental models and mental-logic debate: Conditional syllogisms. In MDS Braine & D.P. O’Brien (Eds). Mental logic. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1998 pp. 385-420. google scholar
2. Rips LJ. The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. Mit Press 1994. google scholar Johnson-Laird PN, Byrne RM. Conditionals: a theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychol Rev 2002 109(4): 646-78. google scholar
3. Stanovich KE. Balance in psychological research: The dual process perspective. Behav Brain Sci 2004 27(3): 357-8. google scholar
4. Clore GL, Huntsinger JR. How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends Cogni Sci 2007 11(9): 393-9. google scholar
5. Qiu J, Li H, Huang X, Zhang F, Chen A, Luo Y, et al. The neural basis of conditional reasoning: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia 2007 45(7): 1533-9. google scholar
6. Reverberi C, Cherubini P, Frackowiak RS, Caltagirone C, Paulesu E, Macaluso E. Conditional and syllogistic deductive tasks dissociate functionally during premise integration. Hum Brain Mapp 2010 31(9): 1430-45. google scholar
7. Coetzee JP, Monti MM. At the core of reasoning: Dissociating deductive and non‐deductive load. Hum Brain Mapp 2018 39(4): 1850-61. google scholar
8. Evans JSB. In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn Sci 2003 7(10): 454-9. google scholar Stanovich K. Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press 2011. google scholar

9. Kahneman D. Fast and slow thinking. Allen Lane and Penguin Books, New York 2011. google scholar
10. Evans V. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cogn Linguist 2006 17(4): 491-534. google scholar
11. Evans JSB, Curtis-Holmes J. Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Think Reasoning 2005 11(4): 382-9. google scholar
12. Eichele TSK, Moosmann M, Jongsma ML, Quiroga RQ, Nordby H, Hugdahl K. Assessing the spatiotemporal evolution of neuronal activation with single-trial event-related potentials and functional MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005 102(49): 17798-803. google scholar
13. Sabé M, Hyde J, Cramer C, Eberhard AL, Crippa A, Brunoni AR, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation across mental disorders: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. JAMA netw Open 2024 7(5): e2412616. google scholar
14. Petruo VA, Zeißig S, Schmelz R, Hampe J, Beste C. Specific neurophysiological mechanisms underlie cognitive inflexibility in inflammatory bowel disease. Sci Rep 2017 7(1): 13943. google scholar
15. Prado J, Kaliuzhna M, Cheylus A, Noveck IA. Overcoming perceptual features in logical reasoning: An event-related potentials study. Neuropsychologia 2008 46(11): 2629-37. google scholar
16. Zaghi S, Acar M, Hultgren B, Boggio PS, Fregni F. Noninvasive brain stimulation with low-intensity electrical currents: putative mechanisms of action for direct and alternating current stimulation. Neuroscientist 2010 16(3): 285-307. google scholar
17. Schlaug G, Renga V, Nair D. Transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke recovery. Arch Neurol-Chicago 2008 65(12): 1571-6. google scholar
18. Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology 2001 57(10): 1899-901. google scholar
19. Nitsche MA, Cohen LG, Wassermann EM, Priori A, Lang N, Anta A, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008. Brain Stimul 2008 1(3): 206-23. google scholar
20. Nalçacı E, Kalaycıoğlu C, Güneş E, Çiçek. El tercihi anketinin geçerlik ve güvenilirliği. Turk Psikiyatr Derg 2002 13(2): 99-106. google scholar
21. Evans JSB. The influence of linguistic form on reasoning: The case of matching bias. Q J Exp Psychol 1999 Section A, 52(1): 185-216. google scholar
22. Trippas D, Thompson VA, Handley SJ. When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias. Mem Cognition 2017 45(4): 539-52. google scholar
23. Handley SJ, Newstead SE, Trippas D. Logic, beliefs, and instruction: a test of the default interventionist account of belief bias. J Exp Psychol Learn 2011 37(1): 28. google scholar
24. Trémolière B, Maheux-Caron V, Lepage JF, Blanchette, I. tDCS stimulation of the dlPFC selectively moderates the detrimental impact of emotion on analytical reasoning. Front Psychol 2018 9: 568. google scholar
25. Edgcumbe DR, Thoma V, Rivolta D, Nitsche MA, Fu CH. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex enhances reflective judgment and decision-making. Brain Stimul 2019 12(3): 652-8. google scholar
26. Noveck IA, Goel V, Smith KW. The neural basis of conditional reasoning with arbitrary content. Cortex 2004 40(4-5): 613-22. google scholar
27. Qiu J, Li H, Chen A, Zhang Q. The neural basis of analogical reasoning: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia 2008 46(12): 3006-13. google scholar
28. Prado J, Noveck IA. How reaction time measures elucidate the matching bias and the way negations are processed. Think Reasoning 2006 12(3): 309-28. google scholar