Peipeng Liang, Vinod Goel, Xiuqin Jia, Kuncheng Li
Abstract
The inclusion fallacy is a phenomenon in which generalization from a specific premise category to a more general conclusion category is considered stronger than a generalization to a specific conclusion category nested within the more general set. Such inferences violate rational norms and are part of the reasoning fallacy literature that provides interesting tasks to explore cognitive and neural basis of reasoning. To explore the functional neuroanatomy of the inclusion fallacy, we used a 2 × 2 factorial design, with factors for quantification (explicit and implicit) and response (fallacious and non-fallacious). It was found that a left fronto-temporal system, along with a superior medial frontal system, was specifically activated in response to fallacious responses consistent with a semantic biasing of judgment explanation. A right fronto-parietal system was specifically recruited in response to detecting conflict associated with the heightened fallacy condition. These results are largely consistent with previous studies of reasoning fallacy and support a multiple systems model of reasoning.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
3%
Nursing and Health Professions
1
3%
Other
5
17%
Unknown
10
33%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2014.
All research outputs
#14,786,093
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,911
of 7,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,229
of 259,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#170
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 259,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
