FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W177597204> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W177597204 abstract "The Activation of Hypotheses during Abductive Reasoning Martin R. K. Baumann (martin.baumann@phil.tu-chemnitz.de) Katja Mehlhorn (katja.mehlhorn@phil.tu-chemnitz.de) Franziska Bocklisch (franziska.bocklisch@phil.tu-chemnitz.de) Chemnitz University of Technology, Department of Psychology, Wilhelm-Raabe-Str. 43, 09107 Chemnitz, Germany observations. Following the above example, in most cases a patient complains not only about one symptom, such as a headache, but about a set of observations that could be a headache, sickness, and fever. Each of these symptoms can be caused by many different diseases. The physician’s task is to find the best explanation for the whole symptoms set. And, despite the complexity of the problem, the physician solves the problem in most cases quickly and accurately. How is this accomplished? Johnson and Krems (2001) suggested on the basis of their results on abductive reasoning that people use initial observations to construct a preliminary explanation for these observations. Succeeding observations are sequentially comprehended and integrated to generate a single current explanation for all observations seen so far. If an observation can be comprehended in different ways, that is, if there exist alternative elementary explanations for this new observation, the current explanation is used to decide between these alternatives. Only those elementary explanations for the new observations are considered as relevant that are compatible with the current explanation. Thus, the current explanation acts as an explanatory context for the comprehension and explanation of new observations. It reduces the complexity of the abductive reasoning problem as not all possible elementary explanations for a new observation are considered as relevant but only those that are compatible with the current explanation. Whereas Johnson and Krems’ model focuses on deliberate reasoning processes to describe the use of the current explanatory context, we assume that automatic comprehension processes based on spreading activation and constraint satisfaction also play a key role. It has been argued recently that both deliberate and automatic processes are involved in many reasoning tasks (Sloman, 1996) such as impression formation (Thagard & Kunda, 1998), hypothesis evaluation (Johnson, Zhang, & Wang, 1997), and medical diagnosis (Arocha & Patel, 1995). Thagard and Kunda explain how spreading activation processes can explain the effect of social stereotypes on the interpretation of behavior. Johnson, Zhang, and Wang show how automatic processes can provide information for the evaluation of hypotheses that is used subsequently in more deliberate processes to revise existing or generate new hypotheses in an abductive reasoning task. In our view these automatic processes also serve the function of making those elementary explanations of new observations highly available to the reasoner that have a high probability of being the relevant explanations in the Abstract Abductive reasoning, that is, finding an explanation for a set of observations, can be understood as a process of sequentially understanding and integrating new observations into a mental model about the current situation (Johnson & Krems, 2001; Josephson & Josephson, 1994). Whereas Johnson and Krems’ model focuses on conscious deliberate processes, it has been argued that automatic implicit processes also play an important role in abductive reasoning (e.g. Johnson, Zhang, & Wang, 1997). Adopting Kintsch`s (1998) construction-integration theory, we assume that automatic activation processes regulate the availability of possible explanations during the reasoning process. In our experiment, participants solved an artificial diagnosis task while the activation of explanatory hypotheses was measured. We found that explanatory hypotheses relevant in the current context for explaining a set of observations are kept in a more active state in memory than irrelevant or rejected hypotheses. Keywords: abductive reasoning; causal reasoning; automatic processes; explanations; activation. Introduction Generating a hypothesis to explain one or more observations is an essential part of many real world tasks. This kind of reasoning is called abductive reasoning (Josephson & Josephson, 1994). It is a vital subprocess, for example, in scientific discovery, medical diagnosis, software debugging, social attribution processes, and discourse comprehension. While explaining a given set of observations, the reasoner has often to decide between different alternative explanations to find the best explanation for the observations. We assume that both deliberate reasoning processes and automatic comprehension processes contribute to the generation of hypotheses (Johnson, Zhang, & Wang, 1997; Sloman, 1996). The goal of this paper is to examine how automatic comprehension processes constrain the consideration of hypotheses to the most plausible ones in the given context by making these hypotheses highly available to the reasoner and reducing the availability of implausible ones. Constructing an explanatory hypothesis can be a quite complex task. First, in many cases there is more than one possible explanation for a given observation. For example, headache is a common symptom of many diseases and is associated with many different causes. Second, the task is often not to explain one observation but a set of observations where each observation can be explained with more than one explanation. In such a case, a combination of elementary hypotheses has to be found that best explains all" @default.
• W177597204 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W177597204 creator A5037461826 @default.
• W177597204 creator A5039462142 @default.
• W177597204 creator A5058962505 @default.
• W177597204 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W177597204 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W177597204 title "The Activation of Hypotheses during Abductive Reasoning" @default.
• W177597204 cites W153462699 @default.
• W177597204 cites W1545313409 @default.
• W177597204 cites W1546644035 @default.
• W177597204 cites W1674947250 @default.
• W177597204 cites W1803467130 @default.
• W177597204 cites W1950644452 @default.
• W177597204 cites W1984207618 @default.
• W177597204 cites W1987431183 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2012086511 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2039996956 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2082557450 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2084015864 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2121001250 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2121951426 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2129587501 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2549046034 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2586716668 @default.
• W177597204 cites W2947109711 @default.
• W177597204 cites W64998344 @default.
• W177597204 cites W1560842320 @default.
• W177597204 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W177597204 type Work @default.
• W177597204 sameAs 177597204 @default.
• W177597204 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W177597204 countsByYear W1775972042012 @default.
• W177597204 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W177597204 hasAuthorship W177597204A5037461826 @default.
• W177597204 hasAuthorship W177597204A5039462142 @default.
• W177597204 hasAuthorship W177597204A5058962505 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C166088908 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C2780801425 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W177597204 hasConcept C97364631 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C111472728 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C138885662 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C151730666 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C154945302 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C15744967 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C166088908 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C177264268 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C188147891 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C199360897 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C2779343474 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C2780801425 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C41008148 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C86803240 @default.
• W177597204 hasConceptScore W177597204C97364631 @default.
• W177597204 hasIssue "29" @default.
• W177597204 hasLocation W1775972041 @default.
• W177597204 hasOpenAccess W177597204 @default.
• W177597204 hasPrimaryLocation W1775972041 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W1595450751 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W1937331378 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W1964510603 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W1971771969 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2034424392 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2034637247 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2062836341 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2065412393 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2097959707 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2121951426 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2153162913 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2586716668 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2620881526 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2624010902 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2767277137 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W28317371 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W2883050578 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W29214467 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W576675815 @default.
• W177597204 hasRelatedWork W64525635 @default.
• W177597204 hasVolume "29" @default.
• W177597204 isParatext "false" @default.
• W177597204 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W177597204 magId "177597204" @default.
• W177597204 workType "article" @default.