ArticleiScience2023
Relational complexity influences analogical reasoning ability.
Article in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Auditory sensory processing induces cortical and thalamic event-related desynchronization in the mouse.PloS one · 2025Article
- Stimulus-dependent emergence of understanding the 'same-different' concept in budgerigars.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human language without analogy is like a zebra without stripes. The ability to understand analogies, or to engage in relational reasoning, has been argued to be an important distinction between the cognitive abilities of human and non-human animals. Current studies have failed to robustly show that animals can perform more complex, relational discriminations, in part because such tests rely on linguistic or symbolic experiences, and therefore are not suitable for evaluating analogical reasoning in animals. We report on a methodological approach allowing for direct comparisons of analogical reasoning ability across species. We show that human participants spontaneously make analogical discriminations with minimal verbal instructions, and that the ability to reason analogically is affected by analogical complexity. Furthermore, performance on our task correlated with participants' fluid intelligence scores. These results show the nuance of analogical reasoning abilities by humans, and provide a means of robustly comparing this capacity across species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.