Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34913145›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2022

Recursion in programs, thought, and language.

P N Johnson-Laird, Monica Bucciarelli, Robert Mackiewicz, Sangeet S Khemlani

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

P N Johnson-LairdDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA. phil@princeton.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4461-1324
Monica BucciarelliDepartment of Psychology, Università di Torino, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5188-5561
Robert MackiewiczDepartment of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2990-2337
Sangeet S KhemlaniNavy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence, Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1158-553X

Funding

Narodowe Centrum Nauki Grant 2014/14/M/HS6/00916
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents a theory of recursion in thinking and language. In the logic of computability, a function maps one or more sets to another, and it can have a recursive definition that is semi-circular, i.e., referring in part to the function itself. Any function that is computable - and many are not - can be computed in an infinite number of distinct programs. Some of these programs are semi-circular too, but they needn't be, because repeated loops of instructions can compute any recursive function. Our theory aims to explain how naive individuals devise informal programs in natural language, and is itself implemented in a computer program that creates programs. Participants in our experiments spontaneously simulate loops of instructions in kinematic mental models. They rely on such loops to compute recursive functions for rearranging the order of cars in trains on a track with a siding. Kolmogorov complexity predicts the relative difficulty of abducing such programs - for easy rearrangements, such as reversing the order of the cars, to difficult ones, such as splitting a train in two and interleaving the two resulting halves (equivalent to a faro shuffle). This rearrangement uses both the siding and part of the track as working memories, shuffling cars between them, and so it relies on the power of a linear-bounded computer. Linguistic evidence implies that this power is more than necessary to compose the meanings of sentences in natural language from those of their grammatical constituents.

Indexed as

LanguageLinguisticsHumansLogicMemory, Short-TermComputational powerGrammarInformal programsMental modelsRecursionWorking memory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.