NEUROR: Exploring the Neural Basis of Reasoning

Healthy Clinical Trial

— NEUROR  

Official title:

Exploring the Neural Basis of Reasoning

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Not yet recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04849208
• Other study ID #: 2019-A02022-55
• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Start date: May 3, 2021
• Est. completion date: May 3, 2023

Study information

• Verified date: April 2021
• Source: Centre Hospitalier St Anne
• Contact: Khaoussou SYLLA, Dr.
• Phone: 01 45 65 76 78
• Email: k.sylla[@]ghu-paris.fr
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

Decades of research have long established that people's reasoning can be biased by their intuitions and deviate from logical norms. Popular dual process models that characterize thinking as an interaction between intuitive and deliberate thought processes have presented an appealing explanation for this observation. Within this account logical reasoning is traditionally considered as a prototypical example of a task that requires effortful deliberate thinking. In recent years, however, a number of findings obtained with new behavioral paradigms have questioned the traditional dual process characterization. A key observation is that people can process logical principles in classic reasoning tasks intuitively without deliberation.

The fast or intuitive logic findings have far stretching theoretical implications for dual process theories and our view of human rationality. However, the nature of this newly discovered fast logical reasoning is not clear. One limitation is that its neural basis has not been explored. The primary goal of this project is to address this shortcoming in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study. In the study adult participants will solve classic reasoning problems (i.e., variants of the bat-and-ball problem) in the scanner. Half of the trials will be traditional "Slow" trials in which participants get ample time to deliberate (i.e., 20 s). The other half of the trials will be "Fast" trials in which people do not get sufficient time to deliberate (i.e., 4 s deadline) and need to rely on intuitive processing.

All participants in the fMRI study will be healthy adults aged between 18-45. In addition to contrasting correct responders' brain activation during fast and slow trials, we will also contrast the fast and slow activations for correct and incorrect responses. This will allows us to identify brain regions associated with both correct and incorrect fast and slow logical responses and reach our study objective.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Enrollment: 60
• Est. completion date: May 3, 2023
• Est. primary completion date: May 3, 2023
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 45 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• right-handed

• signed informed consent form

• medical, neurological, neuroradiological healthy

• social security number

• use of contraception for female subjects

Exclusion Criteria:

• standard contra-indication for MRI examination (pacemaker, metallic implants/dental braces, claustrophobia, pregnancy)

• chronic drug or alcohol user

• cognitive disorders linked to cardiovascular accidents

• chronic neurological or psychiatric disorder

• history of major illness (diabetes, metabolic, cancer, immunological)

• use of medicines that can potentially interfere with cerebral imaging (psychotropic drugs, hypnotics, anxiolytics, neuroleptics, anti-parkinson drugs, benzodiazepines, steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiepileptics, anti-histamines, central analgesics and muscle relaxants)

• dyschromatopsia

• pregnant female

• non-MRI compatible tattoo

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Healthy

Intervention

Other:
• Presentation of fast and slow trials
In each task trial participants will solve a reasoning problem. Half of the trials will be traditional "Slow" trials in which participants get ample time to deliberate (i.e., 20 s). The other half of the trials will be "Fast" trials in which people do not get sufficient time to deliberate (i.e., 4 s deadline) and need to rely on intuitive processing

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
n/a

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Centre Hospitalier St Anne

References & Publications (27)

Advancing the specification of dual process models of higher cognition: a critical test of the hybrid model view. Thinking & Reasoning, 1-30. doi:10.1080/13546783.2018.1552194

Bago B, & De Neys W. (2019). The smart System 1: Evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(3), 257-299.

Bago B, De Neys W. Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition. 2017 Jan;158:90-109. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014. Epub 2016 Nov 4. — View Citation

Ball, L. J.; Thompson, V. A., & Stupple, E. J.N. (2017). Con?ict and dual process theory: the case of belief bias. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 100-120). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-7

Banks, A. (2017). Comparing dual process theories: Evidence from event-related potentials. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 66-81). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-5

De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science. 2006 Aug 4;313(5787):684-7. — View Citation

De Neys W, Vartanian O, Goel V. Smarter than we think: when our brains detect that we are biased. Psychol Sci. 2008 May;19(5):483-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02113.x. — View Citation

De Neys W. Bias and Conflict: A Case for Logical Intuitions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Jan;7(1):28-38. doi: 10.1177/1745691611429354. Epub 2012 Jan 5. — View Citation

De Neys, W. (Ed.) (2017). Dual Process Theory 2.0. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Evans JS, Stanovich KE. Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):223-41. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685. — View Citation

Frederick, S (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic perspectives, 19(4), 25-42.

Goel V, Buchel C, Frith C, Dolan RJ. Dissociation of mechanisms underlying syllogistic reasoning. Neuroimage. 2000 Nov;12(5):504-14. — View Citation

Houdé O, Pineau A, Leroux G, Poirel N, Perchey G, Lanoë C, Lubin A, Turbelin MR, Rossi S, Simon G, Delcroix N, Lamberton F, Vigneau M, Wisniewski G, Vicet JR, Mazoyer B. Functional magnetic resonance imaging study of Piaget's conservation-of-number task in preschool and school-age children: a neo-Piagetian approach. J Exp Child Psychol. 2011 Nov;110(3):332-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.04.008. Epub 2011 Jun 1. — View Citation

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Leroux G, Spiess J, Zago L, Rossi S, Lubin A, Turbelin MR, Mazoyer B, Tzourio-Mazoyer N, Houdé O, Joliot M. Adult brains don't fully overcome biases that lead to incorrect performance during cognitive development: an fMRI study in young adults completing a Piaget-like task. Dev Sci. 2009 Mar;12(2):326-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00785.x. — View Citation

Newman IR, Gibb M, Thompson VA. Rule-based reasoning is fast and belief-based reasoning can be slow: Challenging current explanations of belief-bias and base-rate neglect. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Jul;43(7):1154-1170. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000372. Epub 2017 Feb 13. — View Citation

Pennycook G, Fugelsang JA, Koehler DJ. What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cogn Psychol. 2015 Aug;80:34-72. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001. Epub 2015 Jun 16. — View Citation

Pennycook, G. (2017). A perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual process models. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 5-27). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-2

Prado J, Chadha A, Booth JR. The brain network for deductive reasoning: a quantitative meta-analysis of 28 neuroimaging studies. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Nov;23(11):3483-97. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00063. Epub 2011 May 13. — View Citation

Prado J, Noveck IA. Overcoming perceptual features in logical reasoning: a parametric functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Apr;19(4):642-57. — View Citation

Stollstorff M, Vartanian O, Goel V. Levels of conflict in reasoning modulate right lateral prefrontal cortex. Brain Res. 2012 Jan 5;1428:24-32. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.05.045. Epub 2011 May 25. — View Citation

Thompson VA, Pennycook G, Trippas D, Evans JSBT. Do smart people have better intuitions? J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Jul;147(7):945-961. doi: 10.1037/xge0000457. — View Citation

Thompson VA, Prowse Turner JA, Pennycook G. Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cogn Psychol. 2011 Nov;63(3):107-40. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001. Epub 2011 Jul 27. — View Citation

Thompson, V. A., & Newman, I. (2017). Logical intuitions and other conundra for dual process theories. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 121-136). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-8

Trippas, D., & Handley, S. (2017). The parallel processing model of belief bias: Review and extensions. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 28-46). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-3

Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31. — View Citation

Vartanian O, Beatty EL, Smith I, Blackler K, Lam Q, Forbes S. One-way traffic: The inferior frontal gyrus controls brain activation in the middle temporal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule during divergent thinking. Neuropsychologia. 2018 Sep;118(Pt A):68-78. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.02.024. Epub 2018 Feb 23. — View Citation

* Note: There are 27 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	fMRI results	Contrast of brain activations during correct and incorrect intuitive and deliberate reasoning	2 years