@article{HornigOberauerWeidenfeld2005,
  author    = {Hornig, R. and Oberauer, Klaus and Weidenfeld, Andrea},
  title     = {Two principles of premise integration in spatial reasoning},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {We propose two principles that facilitate integration of two relational premises in spatial reasoning. Integration is easier if the anaphor in the second premise, P2, bears the role of the relatum (relatum = given). Moreover, integration is easier if, in P2, the anaphor is mentioned before the new element (given-new). In premises with canonical word order (grammatical subjects mentioned first), these principles always conflict with one another. In topicalized statements mentioning the prepositional phrase first, the two principles work in tandem. By varying word order, we tested the two principles by measuring P2 comprehension times. Comprehension times indicated that integration was easiest when P2 obeyed both principles and most difficult when both principles were violated. Canonical premises were of intermediate difficulty. This pattern emerged regardless of whether the anaphor was a definite description or a pronoun},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{OberauerWeidenfeldHornig2004,
  author    = {Oberauer, Klaus and Weidenfeld, Andrea and Hornig, R.},
  title     = {Logical reasoning and probabilities: A comprehensive test of Oaksford and Chater (2001)},
  issn      = {1069-9384},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {We report two experiments testing a central prediction of the probabilistic account of reasoning provided by Oaksford and Chater (2001): Acceptance of standard conditional inferences, card choices in the Wason selection task, and quantifiers chosen for conclusions from syllogisms should vary as a function of the frequency of the concepts involved. Frequency was manipulated by a probability-learning phase preceding the reasoning tasks to simulate natural sampling. The effects predicted by Oaksford and Chater (2001) were not obtained with any of the three paradigms},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{OberauerHornigWeidenfeldetal.2005,
  author    = {Oberauer, Klaus and Hornig, R. and Weidenfeld, Andrea and Wilhelm, Oliver},
  title     = {Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning : II. Premise integration and conclusion evaluation},
  issn      = {0272-4987},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {Previous research (Oberauer \& Wilhelm, 2000) has shown an inherent directionality between the two terms linked in premises of typical deductive reasoning tasks. With three experiments we investigated the effect of inherent directionality on the time to integrate two premises and for the derivation of a conclusion. We varied figure (i.e., order of terms in the premises) and direction of inference (i.e., order of terms in the conclusion) in deduction tasks from various domains (propositional reasoning, syllogisms, spatial, temporal, and linear order reasoning). Effects of figure on premise reading times varied with the directionality of the relations. Effects of direction of inference reflected the same directionality for a subset of relations. We propose that two factors are jointly responsible for a large part of observed directionality effects in premise integration: the inherent directionality of relational statements and a general advantage for a given-new order of terms in the second premise. Difficulty of deriving a conclusion is affected by the directionality or relations if and only if the relation is semantically asymmetric, so that the directionality must be preserved in the integrated mental model},
  language  = {en}
}