The neural correlates of logical-mathematical symbol systems processing resemble that of spatial cognition more than natural language processing
0
🧠
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The study investigates the cognitive origins of the ability to manipulate logical-mathematical symbols (LMS), such as in calculation, reasoning, and programming.
- It compares the neural correlates of LMS processing to those of natural language processing and spatial cognition.
- The findings suggest that spatial cognition is more closely related to LMS processing than language processing at the neural level.
Plain English Explanation
Humans have a unique ability to work with logical and mathematical symbols, from doing calculations to writing code. Researchers have wondered where this skill comes from, and whether it builds on other cognitive abilities we have.
The study looked at two main possibilities: language processing and spatial cognition. Previous comparisons have relied on specific tasks, which can be influenced by the unique details of each task. Instead, this study took a broader look at the brain activity patterns associated with different LMS tasks, and compared them to language and spatial processing.
The results showed that LMS processing had more in common with spatial cognition than with language processing in terms of the brain regions involved and the specific neural activity patterns. This suggests that our ability to work with logical-mathematical symbols may be rooted in our spatial reasoning abilities, rather than directly in our language skills.
This finding could help explain why large language models trained only on text data struggle with certain types of logical reasoning, as they may be missing the crucial spatial component. It also points to potential ways to improve the mathematical capabilities of such models by incorporating more spatial training.
Technical Explanation
The study used a combination of automated meta-analysis and synthesized brain activity maps to compare the neural correlates of LMS processing, natural language processing, and spatial cognition. They looked at three representative LMS tasks: reasoning, calculation, and mental programming.
The results showed significant overlap between the brain regions involved in LMS processing and spatial cognition, in contrast to language processing. Further analysis of the specific neural activity patterns revealed that in regions activated by both spatial and language processing, the LMS tasks exhibited greater similarity to the spatial cognition patterns.
A hierarchical clustering analysis also found that the neural signatures of typical LMS tasks were indistinguishable from those of spatial cognition tasks, suggesting an inherent connection between these cognitive processes at the neural level.
These findings support the hypothesis that spatial cognition is the likely foundation for the development of LMS processing abilities, which may have important implications for understanding the limitations of large language models in logical reasoning and how to better align their capabilities with human-like analogical reasoning.
Critical Analysis
The study provides a compelling case for the close relationship between spatial cognition and LMS processing, but there are a few caveats to consider. The use of meta-analysis and synthesized brain maps, while a robust approach, relies on the quality and consistency of the underlying studies. Additionally, the three LMS tasks chosen may not fully capture the breadth of logical-mathematical skills, and further research could explore a wider range of tasks.
It would also be interesting to investigate how this spatial-LMS connection develops over the course of human evolution and individual development, and whether there are any critical periods or environmental factors that shape this relationship. The implications for large language model design and training could also be explored in greater depth.
Overall, this study offers valuable insights into the cognitive foundations of logical-mathematical abilities and raises important questions for future research in this area.
Conclusion
This study suggests that our ability to manipulate logical-mathematical symbols is more closely tied to our spatial reasoning skills than our language processing abilities. This finding has potential implications for understanding the limitations of current language models in tasks requiring logical reasoning, and could inform efforts to improve their mathematical capabilities by incorporating more spatial training. The study also highlights the value of taking a broader, domain-level approach to understanding the cognitive origins of complex skills like LMS processing.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🧠
0
The neural correlates of logical-mathematical symbol systems processing resemble that of spatial cognition more than natural language processing
Yuannan Li, Shan Xu, Jia Liu
The ability to manipulate logical-mathematical symbols (LMS), encompassing tasks such as calculation, reasoning, and programming, is a cognitive skill arguably unique to humans. Considering the relatively recent emergence of this ability in human evolutionary history, it has been suggested that LMS processing may build upon more fundamental cognitive systems, possibly through neuronal recycling. Previous studies have pinpointed two primary candidates, natural language processing and spatial cognition. Existing comparisons between these domains largely relied on task-level comparison, which may be confounded by task idiosyncrasy. The present study instead compared the neural correlates at the domain level with both automated meta-analysis and synthesized maps based on three representative LMS tasks, reasoning, calculation, and mental programming. Our results revealed a more substantial cortical overlap between LMS processing and spatial cognition, in contrast to language processing. Furthermore, in regions activated by both spatial and language processing, the multivariate activation pattern for LMS processing exhibited greater multivariate similarity to spatial cognition than to language processing. A hierarchical clustering analysis further indicated that typical LMS tasks were indistinguishable from spatial cognition tasks at the neural level, suggesting an inherent connection between these two cognitive processes. Taken together, our findings support the hypothesis that spatial cognition is likely the basis of LMS processing, which may shed light on the limitations of large language models in logical reasoning, particularly those trained exclusively on textual data without explicit emphasis on spatial content.
Read more6/21/2024
0
Semantic Structure-Mapping in LLM and Human Analogical Reasoning
Sam Musker, Alex Duchnowski, Raphael Milli`ere, Ellie Pavlick
Analogical reasoning is considered core to human learning and cognition. Recent studies have compared the analogical reasoning abilities of human subjects and Large Language Models (LLMs) on abstract symbol manipulation tasks, such as letter string analogies. However, these studies largely neglect analogical reasoning over semantically meaningful symbols, such as natural language words. This ability to draw analogies that link language to non-linguistic domains, which we term semantic structure-mapping, is thought to play a crucial role in language acquisition and broader cognitive development. We test human subjects and LLMs on analogical reasoning tasks that require the transfer of semantic structure and content from one domain to another. Advanced LLMs match human performance across many task variations. However, humans and LLMs respond differently to certain task variations and semantic distractors. Overall, our data suggest that LLMs are approaching human-level performance on these important cognitive tasks, but are not yet entirely human like.
Read more6/21/2024
1
Metacognitive Capabilities of LLMs: An Exploration in Mathematical Problem Solving
Aniket Didolkar, Anirudh Goyal, Nan Rosemary Ke, Siyuan Guo, Michal Valko, Timothy Lillicrap, Danilo Rezende, Yoshua Bengio, Michael Mozer, Sanjeev Arora
Metacognitive knowledge refers to humans' intuitive knowledge of their own thinking and reasoning processes. Today's best LLMs clearly possess some reasoning processes. The paper gives evidence that they also have metacognitive knowledge, including ability to name skills and procedures to apply given a task. We explore this primarily in context of math reasoning, developing a prompt-guided interaction procedure to get a powerful LLM to assign sensible skill labels to math questions, followed by having it perform semantic clustering to obtain coarser families of skill labels. These coarse skill labels look interpretable to humans. To validate that these skill labels are meaningful and relevant to the LLM's reasoning processes we perform the following experiments. (a) We ask GPT-4 to assign skill labels to training questions in math datasets GSM8K and MATH. (b) When using an LLM to solve the test questions, we present it with the full list of skill labels and ask it to identify the skill needed. Then it is presented with randomly selected exemplar solved questions associated with that skill label. This improves accuracy on GSM8k and MATH for several strong LLMs, including code-assisted models. The methodology presented is domain-agnostic, even though this article applies it to math problems.
Read more5/21/2024
💬
0
Investigating Symbolic Capabilities of Large Language Models
Neisarg Dave, Daniel Kifer, C. Lee Giles, Ankur Mali
Prompting techniques have significantly enhanced the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various complex tasks, including reasoning, planning, and solving math word problems. However, most research has predominantly focused on language-based reasoning and word problems, often overlooking the potential of LLMs in handling symbol-based calculations and reasoning. This study aims to bridge this gap by rigorously evaluating LLMs on a series of symbolic tasks, such as addition, multiplication, modulus arithmetic, numerical precision, and symbolic counting. Our analysis encompasses eight LLMs, including four enterprise-grade and four open-source models, of which three have been pre-trained on mathematical tasks. The assessment framework is anchored in Chomsky's Hierarchy, providing a robust measure of the computational abilities of these models. The evaluation employs minimally explained prompts alongside the zero-shot Chain of Thoughts technique, allowing models to navigate the solution process autonomously. The findings reveal a significant decline in LLMs' performance on context-free and context-sensitive symbolic tasks as the complexity, represented by the number of symbols, increases. Notably, even the fine-tuned GPT3.5 exhibits only marginal improvements, mirroring the performance trends observed in other models. Across the board, all models demonstrated a limited generalization ability on these symbol-intensive tasks. This research underscores LLMs' challenges with increasing symbolic complexity and highlights the need for specialized training, memory and architectural adjustments to enhance their proficiency in symbol-based reasoning tasks.
Read more5/24/2024