Neural Bases of Falsification in Conditional Proposition Testing: Evidence from an Fmri Study

JiMei Liu,Meng Zhang,Jerwen Jou,Xin Wu,Wei Li,Jiang Qiu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.02.011
IF: 2.903
2012-01-01
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Abstract:The ability of testing the validity of a conditional statement is important in our everyday life. However, the brain mechanisms underlying this process, especially falsification process which is important in daily life, but especially crucial to scientific reasoning and research is not as yet completely clear. Therefore, in the present study, we used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the neural bases of the falsification process in testing the validity of a conditional statement as used in Wason's (1966) selection task. Our fMRI results showed that: (1) compared with the baseline condition, both Falsification (by using Modus Ponens, and Modus Tollens) and Non-Falsification conditions (affirming the consequent, and denying the antecedent) activated the left frontal areas (BA44/45, or BA6), and basal ganglia, the areas previously found in the rule-guided conditional reasoning operations; the parietal area (BA40, BA7) for recruiting cognitive resources to represent and maintain the different evidential information in working memory. (2) The left middle frontal gyrus (BA9) and cerebellum were shown to be activated in the contrast of Falsification condition versus Non-Falsification condition and in the contrast of MT versus Non-Falsification condition. These results indicated that the left middle frontal gyrus (BA9) might be the key brain region involved in the falsification process of conditional statement for which abstracting and integrating logical relationships, and inhibiting the distraction of the irrelevant information were the essential processes. Moreover, the cerebellum was found to be responsible for constructing an internal working model. In addition, our brain imaging results might support the dual-process theory of reasoning.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?