Abstract
Behavioural studies have indicated that semantic typicality influences processing time and accuracy during the performance of inductive reasoning (i.e., the typicality effect). The present study examines this effect by manipulating the types of premises and conclusions (i.e., general, typical, or atypical) at an electrophysiological level using a semantic category-based induction task. With regard to behavioural results, higher inductive strength was found in typical conclusions in all premise conditions, whereas a longer response time for atypical conclusions was only found in general and typical premise conditions. The ERP results had different response patterns: in the general premise condition, a larger P2, as well as a smaller P3 and LPC (500–600 ms), were elicited by atypical conclusions relative to typical ones; in the typical premise condition, a larger P2 and LPC (600–700 ms) were found for atypical conclusions; in the atypical premise condition, however, only a larger P2 was found for atypical conclusions. The divergent evidence for the typicality effect indicated that the processing of the typicality effect in general, and specific premise conditions, might involve different cognitive processes, such as resource allocation and inference violation, which yielded new insights into the neural underpinnings of the typicality effect in a category-based induction.
Highlights
Stimulus had the property described in the category presented before, reaction time data revealed a significant typicality effect, and ERP data indicated that larger N1, P2, and N400 amplitudes were elicited by atypical words relative to typical words[6]
These results further indicated that the typicality effect has a pervasive influence on the early perceptual and attention processes, as well as later semantic processes and categorisation
Lei et al.[6] mainly explored the typicality effect during category-based deduction, in which the category in the premise included the category in the conclusion (e.g., Birds have property X; →Sparrows/penguins have property X; The bird includes the sparrow and penguin): as a result, the argument is logically valid[16,17,18], yet, little is known about the neural basis of the typicality effect during category-based induction, in which the category in the premise belongs to the category in the conclusion (e.g., Sparrows/penguins have property X; →Birds have property X), or both premise and conclusion belong to same basic level category (e.g., Sparrows/penguins have property X; →Chicken/crows have property X; Both of them are birds)
Summary
Stimulus (conclusion) had the property described in the category presented before (premise), reaction time data revealed a significant typicality effect, and ERP data indicated that larger N1, P2, and N400 amplitudes were elicited by atypical words relative to typical words[6]. After being presented with six consecutive words that shared one feature, participants were required to judge whether the seventh word possessed that feature (i.e., inclusion), or whether it did not They found that a larger P2 and smaller N400 were elicited by typical members relative to atypical members in inclusion, whereas typical members elicited a larger N2 than atypical members in the exclusion[15]. Long et al.[19] found a larger P3 amplitude for logically related arguments (Apple X1 →Banana X1?) relative to arguments that the premises were unrelated to the conclusions (Apple X1 →Telephone X1?)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
