K. Stenning and J. Oberlander. A cognitive theory of graphicaland linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science,19: 97--140, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....quantifiers in First Order Logic (FOL) no such overt markers appear in diagrammatic proofs. In this regard, it is often noticed that this concrete character of graphics supports effective interpretation; for instance, in the theory of the Specificity of Graphics (TSG) of Stenning and Oberlander [16], it is argued that graphics limit abstraction and thereby aid processibility. However, diagrammatic proofs seem to challange this assumption: if the diagrams used in diagrammatic proofs are formal objects representing universal mathematical statements, the abstraction required for the ....

Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J., 1995, A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation, Cognitive Science 19: 97-140.

....problem. In direct manipulation systems, many consmints on causality are made directly available via the user s perception of the apparently physical situation. This is less true of linguistic representations, where there is no limit on the abstract expressive power of the representation system [29], and hence no boundary that can be exploited to consWain reasoning during planning. These considerations lead to the well known cognitive benefits of direct manipulation [27] In a direct manipulation system, the current status of the system should be continuously represented to the user, a ....

Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation Cognitive Science, 19(1), 97-140.

....is a carnivore, because the diagram shows us a way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. While there has been much recent research in the logical analysis of diagrammatic reasoning (Allwein and Barwise [1] 2] Glasgow et al. 8] 15] Shin [16] Stenning and Oberlander [19]) we believe that some basic properties of diagrammatic representation systems deserve more attention, particularly when their suitability for performing logical inferences is in question. In particular, the following two properties of representation systems are of central importance. 1. For ....

Stenning, K., and J. Oberlander, "A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation," Cognitive Science, vol. 19 (1995), pp. 97--140.

....to refer generically to components of knowledge one might wish to represent, such as hypotheses, statements of fact, concepts, relationships, rules, etc. Representational guidance manifests in two major ways: Constraints: limits on expressiveness, i.e. which knowledge units can be expressed [15]. Salience: how the representation facilitates processing of certain knowledge units, possibly at the expense of others [8] As depicted in Figure 1, representational guidance originates in the notation, but affects the user through both the tool and artifacts constructed in the tool. The core ....

....based on differences between representational notations. 2. 1 Representational notations bias learners towards particular ontologies The first hypothesis claims that important guidance for learning interactions comes from ways in which a representational notation limits what can be represented [15, 21]. A representational notation provides a set of Figure 1 Representational Guidance To appear in proceedings of International Conference on Computers in Education, November21 24, 2000, Taipei, Taiwan 3 primitive elements out of which representational artifacts are constructed. These primitive ....

Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science 19(1): 97-140. 1995.

....and from Collins Fergusons (1993) discussion of representations as epistemic forms with associated epistemic games. Other literature suggests that representational guidance has it origins in constraints: limits on expressiveness, and on the sequence in which information can be expressed (Stenning Oberlander, 1995) and salience: how the representation facilitates processing of certain information (Larkin Simon, 1987) 2 Our work is based on the premise that representational tools mediate collaborative learning interactions by providing learners with the means to express their emerging knowledge in a ....

Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science 19(1): 97-140. 1995.

....a tool. Each given representational notation manifests a particular representational guidance, expressing certain aspects of one s knowledge better than others do. Representational guidance includes constraints: limits on expressiveness, and on the sequence in which information can be expressed [33] and salience: how the representation facilitates processing of certain information, possibly at the expense of others [16] Representational guidance originates in the notation, but affects the user through both the tool and artifacts constructed in the tool. My thesis may be stated as follows: ....

Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19(1), 97-140.

....perceptual limitations associated with recognising and representing those regularities. Some authors have focussed on the properties of graphical representations as efficient means of reducing memory load or of constraining representations in a way that facilitates reasoning about a domain (e.g. Stenning and Oberlander, 1995). Other authors, such as Tversky (1981, 1989, 1995) have focussed on individual cognitive factors, such as conceptual limitations, schemata, and perceptual processes in normalising and conventionalising the form of graphical representations. A further influence, also sometimes cited as affecting ....

Stenning, K and Oberlander, J. (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation.

....it appears that the role of sketching extends far beyond this initial hypothesis. Freehand sketches are believed to encourage discoveries of unintended features and consequences [1] 2] Making a depiction on paper forces some organization and specificity in terms of visuo spatial features [3], regardless of whether or not the sketcher pays attention to them. For example, a depiction necessarily takes some shape and occupies an area of a certain size on paper, even though these visual features may not be intended by the sketcher. When a sketcher makes a new depiction, intending it to ....

Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J.: 1995, A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation, Cognitive Science, 19(1): 97-140.

.... We call this situatedinvention (S invention) Freehand sketches are believed to encourage discoveries of unintended features and consequences (Schon and Wiggins, 1992; Goldschmidt, 1994) Making a depiction on paper forces some organization and specificity in terms of visuo spatial features (Stenning and Oberlander, 1995), regardless of whether or not the sketcher pays attention to them. For example, a depiction necessarily takes some shape and occupies an area of a certain size on paper, even though these visual features may not be intended by the sketcher. When a sketcher makes a new depiction, intending it to ....

Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J.: 1995, A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation, Cognitive Science, 19(1): 97-140.

....certain shape and occupies an area of a certain size on paper, even though these visual features may not be intended by the sketcher. This occurs due to a general aspect of external representations; representing something forces some organization and specificity in terms of visual spatial features (Stenning and Oberlander, 1995). These unintended visual spatial features may be discovered in an unexpected way by later inspection, and their discovery could provide useful clues for crucial design ideas. Our recent study (Suwa, Gero, and Purcell, 1999) has presented supportive evidence for this. We conducted a protocol ....

Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J.: 1995, A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation, Cognitive Science, 19(1): 97-140.

....the evaluation of specification languages and describe the cognitive dimensions framework. 4 Approaches to the Evaluation of Languages It is generally accepted that the use of different languages for representation has an impact on the effectiveness with which a variety of tasks can be performed (Stenning Oberlander, 1995). This is true especially in software system development, where the effect of the choice of language on successful system development has long been recognised (Green, 1989, 1991; Johnson, McCarthy Wright, 1995; McCluskey et al. 1995; Modugno, Green Myers, 1994; Roast, 1997) However, the ....

....believe that selection of notations would be more effective, were it influenced by consideration of whether a language is fit for a particular purpose, through an evaluation of that language. The difficulty of evaluating representations directly has been recognised by other authors. These include Stenning and Oberlander (1995) who note problems with an approach which emphasises differences between token representations, rather than the differences of expressive power of the systems the tokens are drawn from . Scaife and Rogers (1996) also highlight the problem. In their survey of the literature on how graphical ....

Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97-140.

....less analysis, they claim that diagrams automatically support a large number of perceptual inferences, which are extremely easy for humans (p. 98) I think it fair to assume part of these inferences are the Free Rides of [BS95] A more sophisticated approach is taken by Stenning and Oberlander [SO95] who classify representation systems according to their capability for abstraction. A representation system includes representations and models. Stenning and Oberlander distinguish three classes of such systems: Minimal abstraction representation systems, or MARSs, are those where every ....

....di erent route: I was able to show that for some classes of diagrams, the problem of Interpretation is easy to solve because of qualities of the diagrams themselves, seen as structures. I took a direct mapping approach, which is computation friendly : In the terminology of Stenning Oberlander [SO95] this approach can only deal with MARSs, the least expressive class in the hierarchy of representation systems, and the easiest to compute with. Even with this approach, I ran quite quickly into hard computational problems. This is because what seemed like 40 an innocent, little step the ....

Keith Stenning and Jon Oberlander. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19:97-140, 1995. Also available as ftp: //ftp.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/pub/graphics/ctg.ps.

.... are discussed techniques for achieving isomorphism (that is, ensuring that the implicatures of a representation precisely match that which it represents) This issue of equivalence or isomorphism of diagram to that which it represents is similarly the subject of the theory of speci city [SO95] which addresses the ecacy of diagrams in assisting human reasoning tasks. This theory suggests that it is the inherent implicatures and constraints of diagrams, which will generally limit their expressiveness, that make them so e ective in supporting human reasoning. Finally, the inherent ....

K Stenning and J Oberlander. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19:97-140, 1995.

....examined the inherent constraints of diagrams (topological, geometric, spatial and so forth) to explicate their computational benefits. The second dimension which has been studied (particularly from an HCI perspective) concerns features and properties which impact upon the cognition of the user [4, 7, 16, 19, 29]. Recently a careful examination [9] of analogies (and disanalogies) between typical text based languages and diagrammatic languages has sought to unify the above two dimensions of naturalness . The examination was quite revealing about both similarities and di#erences in the textual and ....

K. Stenning and J. Oberlander. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19:97--140, 1995.

.... Previous studies of diagrammatic representations have typically sought to explicate either computational benefits of diagrams through analysis of inherent constraints [9, 60, 123, 124, 125] or (from an HCI perspective) features and properties which impact upon the cognition of the user [39, 43, 85, 109, 129]. Studies such as [41, 130, 148] have indicated that the most e#ective representations are those which are well matched to what they represent, in the context of particular reasoning tasks. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated in [43, 110, 112] that pragmatic features of diagrammatic ....

K Stenning and J Oberlander. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19:97--140, 1995.

No context found.

K. Stenning and J. Oberlander. A cognitive theory of graphicaland linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science,19: 97--140, 1995.

No context found.

K. Stenning and J. Oberlander. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19:97--140, 1995. 47

No context found.

Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J. (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97-140.

No context found.

Stenning, K. and J. Oberlander (1991) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Research Paper HCRC/RP-20, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.

....from implementations. An semantic analysis of the syllogism reveals what is common between apparently unrelated methods of reasoning and how such an analysis can guide experimental investigation. Existing accounts of syllogistic reasoning oppose rule based linguistic to model based methods. Stenning Oberlander (1995) show that the latter are isomorphic to wellknown graphical methods correctly interpreted. We here extend these results by showing that equivalent sentential implementations exist, thus revealing that all these approaches are members of a family of abstract individual identification algorithms ....

....texts. Larkin Simon (1987) have proposed that when graphics is good it is because graphical representations facilitate certain computations e.g. parallel search. This view proposes that a graphical and a linguistic representation may be informationally identical but computationally distinct. Stenning Oberlander (1995) emphasise the distinction between token representations and systems of representation in applying the concept of expressiveness. They propose that when graphics is good it is because graphical systems are inexpressive relative to languages. Although token linguistic and graphic representations ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, pps. 97--140.

....2) We have been carrying out a series of experiments on Hyperproof, to help evaluate its effects on students learning logic. The study has established that there are important individual differences in the way students respond to logic taught multimodally (Cox, Stenning and Oberlander 1994; Stenning, Cox and Oberlander 1995). In the course of this larger study, we have built up a substantial corpus of proofs. These hyperproofs are an unusual form of discourse, for two main reasons. Firstly, they are primarily used for self communication: a student arranges proof steps and rules in an external representation as an ....

....Hypotheses The observation that graphical systems require certain classes of information to be specified goes back at least to Bishop Berkeley. Elsewhere, we have termed this property specificity , and argued that it is useful because inference with specific representations can be very simple (Stenning and Oberlander 1991, 1995). We have also urged that actual graphical systems do allow abstractions to be expressed, and it is this that endows them with a usable level of expressive power. Thus, Hyperproof maintains a set of abstraction conventions for objects spatial or visual attributes. As well as concrete depictions ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97--140.

No context found.

Keith Stenning, Jon Oberlander, 1995. A cognitive Theory of Graphical and Linguistic Reasoning: Logic and Implementation, Cognitive Science 19: 97--140.

No context found.

Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1994). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science 19, 97-140.

No context found.

Erlbaum. Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97-140.

No context found.

K Stenning and J Oberlander. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19:97--140, 1995.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC