The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation
Open accessAbstract
We discuss external and internal graphical and linguistic representational systems. We argue that a cognitive theory of peoples' reasoning performance must account for (a) the logical equivalence of inferences expressed in graphical and linguistic form, and (b) the implementational differences that affect facility of inference. Our theory proposes that graphical representation limit abstraction and thereby aid “processibility”. We discuss the ideas of specificity and abstraction, and their cognitive relevance. Empirical support both comes from tasks which involve the manipulation of external graphics and tasks that do not. For the former, we take Euler's (1772) circles, provide a novel computational reconstruction, show how it captures abstractions, and contrast it with earlier construals and with Johnson-Laird's (1983) mental models representations. We demonstrate equivalence of the graphical Euler system, and the nongraphical mental models system. For tasks not involving manipulation of external graphics, we discuss text comprehension, and the mental performance of syllogisms. By positing an internal system with the same specificity as Euler's circles, we cover the mental models data, and generate new empirical predictions. Finally, we consider how the architecture of working memory explains why such specific representations are relatively easy to store.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
REMEMBERING: A STUDY IN EXPERIMENTAL AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Bartlett, F. C., & Burt, C. (1933) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1933.tb02913.x · Cited by 7,475
Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach
Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R., & Franks, J. J. (1972) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90003-5 · Cited by 908
Cited by
DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations
Ainsworth, S. (2006) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001 · Cited by 1,673
(2014) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,154
The functions of multiple representations
Ainsworth, S. (1999) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00029-9 · Cited by 1,122
External cognition: how do graphical representations work?
Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048 · Cited by 1,066
Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. (2007) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2007.tb00467.x · Cited by 643
Metadata
- Authors
- Stenning, K.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 97-140
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2026507183
- Cited by
- 479
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90005-5
- The paper
- Stenning, K. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90005-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.