• 1990 (Vol.4)
  • 1989 (Vol.3)
  • 1988 (Vol.2)
  • 1987 (Vol.1)

Differentiation of Reasoning Processes Based on Eye Movement Indicators

© 2021 D. V. Zaitseva, A. I. Kovalevb, A. A. Kiselnikovb, N. V. Zaitsevaa, K. G. Povorovab

aLomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Philosophy 119991 Moscow, Lomonosovsky prospect, 27, bldg. 4, Russia
bLomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Psychology 125009 Moscow, Mokhovaya st., 11, bldg. 9, Russia

Received 25 Jun 2021

The goal of this study was to differentiate the processes of reasoning using behavioral and oculomotor parameters on the example of various types of propositional inferences. Two variants of each type of inference (Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Modus Tollendo Ponens, Modus Ponendo Tollens) (correct and incorrect or with different types of disjunction) were used. Eye movements were recorded using the SMI Hi-Speed at a registration frequency of 1250 Hz. Statistically significant differences were found in the indicators of the response time, the number and duration of fixations, the number and speed of saccades, as well as the path length, depending on the types and variants of the solved inferences. The obtained data confirm that using eye tracking technology, it is possible to differentiate various types of inference.

Key words: eye tracking, cognitive procedures, inferences, reasoning, logic

DOI: 10.31857/S0235009221040065

Cite: Zaitsev D. V., Kovalev A. I., Kiselnikov A. A., Zaitseva N. V., Povorova K. G. Differentsiatsiya protsessov rassuzhdeniya na osnove pokazatelei dvizhenii glaz [Differentiation of reasoning processes based on eye movement indicators]. Sensornye sistemy [Sensory systems]. 2021. V. 35(4). P. 313–327 (in Russian). doi: 10.31857/S0235009221040065


  • Barabanshchikov V.A. Vospriyatie vyrazhenii litsa [Perception of facial expressions]. Moscow. Institut psikhologii RAN, 2009. 448 p. (in Russian).
  • Husserl E. Logicheskie issledovaniya [Logical investigations]. V. 2. P. 1. Issledovaniya po fenomenologii i teorii poznaniya [Research in Phenomenology and Theory of Knowledge]. Moscow. Akademicheskii Proekt, 2011. 565 p. (in Russian).
  • James W. Nauchnye osnovy psikhologii [Scientific foundations of psychology]. St. Petersburg. Sankt-Peterburgskaya elektropechatnya, 2003. 373 p. (in Russian).
  • Kahneman D. Dumai medlenno… reshai bystro [Think Slow … Decide Fast]. Moscow. AST, 2014. 656 p. (in Russian).
  • Merlo-Ponti M. Fenomenologiya vospriyatiya [Phenomenology of Perception]. Moscow. Nauka Publ, 1999. 608 p. (in Russian).
  • Yarbus A.L. Rol' dvizhenii glaz v protsesse zreniya [The role of eye movements in vision]. Moscow. Nauka Publ, 1965. 166 p. (in Russian).
  • Aguilera M. Why the content of animal thought cannot be propositional. Analisis Filosofico. 2018. V. 38 (2). P. 183–207. https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2018.303
  • Bago B., De Neys W. Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition. 2017. V. 158. P. 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
  • Ball L.J., Phillips P., Wade C.N., Quayle J.D. Effects of belief and logic on syllogistic reasoning: Eye-movement evidence for selective processing models. Experimental Psychology. 2006. V. 53 (1). P. 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.77
  • Ball L.J. Eye-tracking and reasoning. New approaches in reasoning research. 2013. P. 51–59.
  • Bermúdez J.L. Animal reasoning and proto-logic. Rational animals. 2006. P. 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528272.003.0005
  • Brakel L.A.W., Shevrin H. Freud's dual process theory and the place of the a-rational. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2003. V. 26 (4). P. 527. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03210116
  • Bruckmaier G., Binder K., Krauss S., Kufner H.M. An eyetracking study of statistical reasoning with tree diagrams and 2 × 2 tables. Frontiers in psychology. 2019. V. 10. P. 632–638. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00632
  • Burge T. Origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press. 2010. 624 p.
  • Cesana-Arlotti N., Martín A., Téglás E., Vorobyova L., Cetnarski R., Bonatti L. L. Precursors of logical reasoning in preverbal human infants. Science. 2018. V. 359 (6381). P. 1263–1266. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao3539
  • Dong O. Cognitive Basis of Conditional Reasoning: Insight Through Eye Movements. 2013. https://doi.org/10.14418/wes01.1.937
  • Espino O., Santamaría C., Meseguer E., Carreiras M. Early and late processes in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence from eye-movements. Cognition. 2005. V. 98 (1). P. B1–B9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.010
  • Eva B., Hartmann S., Singmann H.A New Probabilistic Explanation of the Modus Ponens-Modus Tollens Asymmetry. CogSci. 2019. P. 289–294.
  • Evans J.S.B.T. The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2006. V. 13 (3). P. 378–395. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193858
  • Evans J.S.B.T. A brief history of the Wason selection task. The Thinking Mind. Psychology Press. 2016. P. 15–28.
  • Evans J.S.B.T., Ball L.J. Do people reason on the Wason selection task? A new look at the data of Ball et al. (2003). Quarterly J. Exp. Psychol. 2010. V. 63 (3). P. 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903398147
  • Evans J.S.B.T., Clibbens J., Rood B. Bias in conditional inference: Implications for mental models and mental logic. Quarterly J. Exp. Psychol. 1995. V. 48 (3). P. 644–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401409
  • Evans J.S.B.T., Thompson V.A., Over D.E. Uncertain deduction and conditional reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015. V. 6. P. 398–405. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00398
  • Guerra-Carrillo B.C., Bunge S.A. Eye gaze patterns reveal how reasoning skills improve with experience. NPJ science of learning. 2018. V. 3 (1). P. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0035-8
  • Halberda J. Is this a dax which I see before me? Use of the logical argument disjunctive syllogism supports wordlearning in children and adults. Cognitive psychology. 2006. V. 53 (4). P. 310–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.003
  • Hotta T., Ueno K., Hataji Y., Kuroshima H., Fujita K., Kohda M. Transitive inference in cleaner wrasses (Labroides dimidiatus). PloS one. 2020. V. 15 (8). P. e0237817. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237817
  • Husserl E. Analysen zur passiven Synthesis: aus Vorlesungsund Forschungsmanuskripten. 1966. 532 p.
  • Husserl E. Hua XVI. Ding und Raum. Vorlesungen, 1907. 1973. 433 p.
  • Kahneman D. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. 1973. 253 p.
  • Kahneman D.A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American psychologist. 2003. V. 58(9). P. 697–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697
  • Kaup B., Ludtke J., Zwaan R.A. Effects of negation, truth value, and delay on picture recognition after reading affirmative and negative sentences. Proc. Annual Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc. 2005. V. 27 (27).
  • Lazareva O.F., Kandray K., Acerbo M.J. Hippocampal lesion and transitive inference: Dissociation of inferencebased and reinforcement-based strategies in pigeons. Hippocampus. 2015. V. 25 (2). P. 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22366
  • Lee Y., Kwon Y. Understanding mechanisms in transitive inferences: an eye-tracking study in Korean reading. Perceptual and motor skills. 2013. V. 117 (3). P. 761–774. https://doi.org/10.2466/22.24.pms.117x28z1
  • Mata A., Ferreira M.B., Voss A., Kollei T. Seeing the conflict: an attentional account of reasoning errors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2017. V. 24 (6). P. 1980–1986. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1234-7
  • Moffitt K. Evaluation of the fixation duration in visual search. Percept. Psychophys. 1980. V. 27 (4). P. 370–372. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206127
  • Orenes I., Beltrán D., Santamaria C. How negation is understood: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. J. Memory and Language. 2014. V. 74. P. 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.04.001
  • Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford Univ. Press, 1990.
  • Quayle J.D., Ball L.J. Working memory, metacognitive uncertainty, and belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Quarterly J. Exp. Psychol: Section A. 2000. V. 53 (4). P. 1202-1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755945
  • Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin. 1998. V. 124 (3). P. 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
  • Schroyens W.J., Schaeken W., d'Ydewalle G. The processing of negations in conditional reasoning: A meta-analytic case study in mental model and/or mental logic theory. Thinking & reasoning. 2001. V. 7 (2). P. 121–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780042000091
  • Sloman S.A. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological bulletin. 1996. V. 119 (1). P. 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
  • Stanovich K.E., West R.F. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and brain sciences. 2000. V. 23 (5). P. 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00003435
  • Stewart A., Haigh M., Ferguson H. Sensitivity to speaker control in the online comprehension of conditional tips and promises: an eye tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition. 2013. V. 39 (4). P. 1022–1036. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031513
  • Stupple E.J.N., Ball L.J., Evans J.S. B., Kamal-Smith E. When logic and belief collide: Individual differences in reasoning times support a selective processing model. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2011. V. 23 (8). P. 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.589381
  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974. V. 185 (4157). P. 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  • Wagner J.B., Hirsch S.B., Vogel-Farley V.K., Redcay E., Nelson C.A. Eye-Tracking, Autonomic, and Electrophysiological Correlates of Emotional Face Processing in Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder. J. Autism Dev Disord. 2013. V. 43 (1). P. 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1565-1
  • Wason P.C., Johnson-Laird P.N. Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Harvard University Press. 1972. V. 86.
  • Wason P.C., Evans J.S.B.T. Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition. 1974. V. 3 (2). P. 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(74)90017-1
  • Zwaan R.A. The experiential view of language comprehension: How is negation represented. Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes. 2012. P. 255–288.