The paper presents an experimental evidence on differences in the sentence-picture verification under additional memory load between parity and proportional quantifiers. We asked subjects to memorize strings of 4 or 6 digits, then to decide whether a quantifier sentence is true at a given picture, and finally to recall the initially given string of numbers. The results show that: (a) proportional quantifiers are more difficult than parity quantifiers with respect to reaction time and accuracy; (b) maintaining either 4 or 6 (...) elements in the working memory has the same effect on the processing of parity quantifiers; (c) however, in the case of proportional quantifiers subjects performed better in the verification tasks under the 6-digit load condition, and (d) even though the strings of 4 numbers were better recalled by subjects after judging parity there is no difference between quantifiers in the case of the 6-element condition. We briefly outline two alternative explanations for the observed phenomena rooted in the computational model of quantifier verification and the different theories of working memory. (shrink)

We sketch four applications of Marr's levels-of-analysis methodology to the relations between logic and experimental data in the cognitive neuroscience of language and reasoning. The first part of the paper illustrates the explanatory power of computational level theories based on logic. We show that a Bayesian treatment of the suppression task in reasoning with conditionals is ruled out by EEG data, supporting instead an analysis based on defeasible logic. Further, we describe how results from an EEG study on temporal prepositions (...) can be reanalyzed using formal semantics, addressing a potential confound. The second part of the article demonstrates the predictive power of logical theories drawing on EEG data on processing progressive constructions and on behavioral data on conditional reasoning in people with autism. Logical theories can constrain processing hypotheses all the way down to neurophysiology, and conversely neuroscience data can guide the selection of alternative computational level models of cognition. (shrink)

Szymanik (2007) suggested that the distinction between first-order and higher-order quantifiers does not coincide with the computational resources required to compute the meaning of quantifiers. Cognitive difficulty of quantifier processing might be better assessed on the basis of complexity of the minimal corresponding automata. For example, both logical and numerical quantifiers are first-order. However, computational devices recognizing logical quantifiers have a fixed number of states while the number of states in automata corresponding to numerical quantifiers grows with the rank of (...) the quantifier. This observation partially explains the differences in processing between those two types of quantifiers (Troiani et al. 2009) and links them to the computational model. Taking this perspective, below, we suggest the experimental setting extending the one by McMillan et al. (2005) and Troiani et al. (2009). (shrink)