An eye-tracking study of exploitations of spatial constraints in diagrammatic reasoning

Iconic logic: the visual art of drawing the right conclusion

Most people, evidence suggests, have a hard time thinking straight. Symbolic logic is a tool that can help remedy this problem. Unfortunately, it is highly abstract and uses symbols whose meanings rely on unintuitive arbitrary conventions. Without sacrificing rigor, iconic logic is more concrete and uses icons that resemble what they stand for and whose meanings are thus easier to picture, process, and remember. Here I review and critique iconic existential graphs and concept diagrams-the former link iconic logic to iconic mathematics; the latter expand popular Euler or Venn diagrams and have, to some degree, been empirically investigated for user-friendliness. I lay out how expertise in perception, cognition, and genetics can inform and improve such empirical research to help make iconic logic more ergonomic. After all, logic is a tool, and tools should not only suit their use but also their user.

“Mental maps”: Between memorial transcription and symbolic projection

“The mental map” is a concept that has been used and defined in numerous ways. The cognitive map, and the concept map–also known as the “heuristic” or “mind” map–are the two distinct contextual meanings covered by the term mental map in the present article. In the mental map domain, the first major field of study is geography, spatial cognition, and neurophysiology and it aims to understand how the route taken by a subject (or a set of subjects) in space leads to memorization and internal representation(s). In general, the externalization of these representations takes the form of drawings, positioning in a graph, or oral/textual narratives, but it is primarily reflected as a behavior in space that can be recorded as tracking items. A second field of study, one which is geared more toward exploratory and combinatorial uses, is the concept (also heuristic or mind) map which consists in organizing notions, concepts, and information in the form of tree graphs or graphs that can be used to produce diagrams and flowcharts. The aim is projective, for clarification and discovery purposes or for data organization and visualization. To date, very few studies in the literature have examined the similar, overlapping and oppositional features in what is broadly referred to as “representation(s) of space” and “space(s) of representation.” How can we better apprehend the complex notion of “mental map?” The question of memorial transcription? Of “symbolic projection?” Can we identify meeting points between these two polarities and, if possible, a continuum? Through the notion of cognitive graph, recent advances in the understanding of brain mechanisms enable us to approach the distinctions between cognitive map and conceptual map as an articulated and continuous whole.

Mechanism diagrams and abstraction-by-aggregation

Mechanism diagrams exhibit visually the organized parts and operations of a biological mechanism. A mechanism diagram can facilitate mechanistic research by providing a mechanistic explanation of the phenomenon of interest. Much research has been focusing on the mechanistic explanation and the explanatory mechanistic models. As a specific type of scientific diagram, a simple mechanism diagram can be explanatory by drawing on the rich explanatory resources of non-depicted background knowledge. The relationship between the visually depicted and the background knowledge is underexplored. It is unclear how the non-depicted background knowledge of a mechanism diagram contributes to providing a better-informed explanation of the phenomenon of interest in biological sciences. With the aim to explore this relationship, I articulate that a mechanism diagram provides a mechanistic explanation by a process called abstraction-by-aggregation. Through visual cues, the unified relevant background knowledge provides an epistemic access to a better-informed explanation.