AzTrials
AzTrials

HealthyNEURORNCT04849208

NEUROR: Exploring the Neural Basis of Reasoning

An observational study of Healthy, run by Centre Hospitalier St Anne at 1 site in France.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Decades of research have long established that people's reasoning can be biased by their intuitions and deviate from logical norms. Popular dual process models that characterize thinking as an interaction between intuitive and deliberate thought processes have presented an appealing explanation for this observation. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 45 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Healthy
What is being tested?
Presentation of fast and slow trials
How many people
63 participants
Where
1 siteFrance
Study dates
4 Aug 2021to 8 Feb 2022
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 45 years
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult

Study population: Healthy adults

Who may be able to join

  • right-handed
  • signed informed consent form
  • medical, neurological, neuroradiological healthy
  • social security number
  • use of contraception for female subjects

Who cannot join

  • standard contra-indication for MRI examination (pacemaker, metallic implants/dental braces, claustrophobia, pregnancy)
  • chronic drug or alcohol user
  • cognitive disorders linked to cardiovascular accidents
  • chronic neurological or psychiatric disorder
  • history of major illness (diabetes, metabolic, cancer, immunological)
  • use of medicines that can potentially interfere with cerebral imaging (psychotropic drugs, hypnotics, anxiolytics, neuroleptics, anti-parkinson drugs, benzodiazepines, steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiepileptics, anti-histamines, central analgesics and muscle relaxants)
Show all 9Show fewer
  • dyschromatopsia
  • pregnant female
  • non-MRI compatible tattoo

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

France1 site

  • GHU PAris - Psychiatrie & Neurosciences

    Paris, 75014

Other trials in France

About this study

Official title: Exploring the Neural Basis of Reasoning

Decades of research have long established that people's reasoning can be biased by their intuitions and deviate from logical norms. Popular dual process models that characterize thinking as an interaction between intuitive and deliberate thought processes have presented an appealing explanation for this observation. Within this account logical reasoning is traditionally considered as a prototypical example of a task that requires effortful deliberate thinking. In recent years, however, a number of findings obtained with new behavioral paradigms have questioned the traditional dual process characterization. A key observation is that people can process logical principles in classic reasoning tasks intuitively without deliberation.

The fast or intuitive logic findings have far stretching theoretical implications for dual process theories and our view of human rationality. However, the nature of this newly discovered fast logical reasoning is not clear. One limitation is that its neural basis has not been explored. The primary goal of this project is to address this shortcoming in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study. In the study adult participants will solve classic reasoning problems (i.e., variants of the bat-and-ball problem) in the scanner. Half of the trials will be traditional "Slow" trials in which participants get ample time to deliberate (i.e., 20 s). The other half of the trials will be "Fast" trials in which people do not get sufficient time to deliberate (i.e., 4 s deadline) and need to rely on intuitive processing.

All participants in the fMRI study will be healthy adults aged between 18-45. In addition to contrasting correct responders' brain activation during fast and slow trials, we will also contrast the fast and slow activations for correct and incorrect responses. This will allows us to identify brain regions associated with both correct and incorrect fast and slow logical responses and reach our study objective.

Conditions
Healthy
Being tested
Presentation of fast and slow trials
Keywords
fMRI, Reasoning, Dual process theory, decision making

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Presentation of fast and slow trialsOther

    In each task trial participants will solve a reasoning problem. Half of the trials will be traditional "Slow" trials in which participants get ample time to deliberate (i.e., 20 s). The other half of the trials will be "Fast" trials in which people do not get sufficient time to deliberate (i.e., 4 s deadline) and need to rely on intuitive processing

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. fMRI results

    Contrast of brain activations during correct and incorrect intuitive and deliberate reasoning

    Measured: 2 years

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted19 Apr 2021
  2. Study start4 Aug 2021
  3. Primary completion8 Feb 2022
  4. Study completion8 Feb 2022

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Other
Enrolment
63 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04849208
Sponsor's protocol ID
D19-P030
Acronym
NEUROR
Status last verified
Apr 2021
First submitted
13 Apr 2021
Last updated
12 Jul 2024
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided: We plan to share the anonymized study data (behavioral scores and imaging data) on the open-science framework. This will allow other researchers to verify or statistical analyses.

Publications

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.

    PubMed 17835457

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

  • Evans JS, Stanovich KE. Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):223-41. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685.

    PubMed 26172965

  • Thompson VA, Prowse Turner JA, Pennycook G. Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cogn Psychol. 2011 Nov;63(3):107-40. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001. Epub 2011 Jul 27.

    PubMed 21798215

  • Bago B, De Neys W. Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition. 2017 Jan;158:90-109. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014. Epub 2016 Nov 4.

    PubMed 27816844

  • Newman IR, Gibb M, Thompson VA. Rule-based reasoning is fast and belief-based reasoning can be slow: Challenging current explanations of belief-bias and base-rate neglect. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Jul;43(7):1154-1170. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000372. Epub 2017 Feb 13.

    PubMed 28191989

  • Thompson VA, Pennycook G, Trippas D, Evans JSBT. Do smart people have better intuitions? J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Jul;147(7):945-961. doi: 10.1037/xge0000457.

    PubMed 29975089

  • Bago B, & De Neys W. (2019). The smart System 1: Evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(3), 257-299.

  • Advancing the specification of dual process models of higher cognition: a critical test of the hybrid model view. Thinking & Reasoning, 1-30. doi:10.1080/13546783.2018.1552194

  • Ball, L. J.; Thompson, V. A., & Stupple, E. J.N. (2017). Conflict and dual process theory: the case of belief bias. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 100-120). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-7

  • Banks, A. (2017). Comparing dual process theories: Evidence from event-related potentials. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 66-81). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-5

  • De Neys W. Bias and Conflict: A Case for Logical Intuitions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Jan;7(1):28-38. doi: 10.1177/1745691611429354. Epub 2012 Jan 5.

    PubMed 26168420

  • Pennycook, G. (2017). A perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual process models. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 5-27). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-2

  • Thompson, V. A., & Newman, I. (2017). Logical intuitions and other conundra for dual process theories. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 121-136). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-8

  • Trippas, D., & Handley, S. (2017). The parallel processing model of belief bias: Review and extensions. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 28-46). Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315204550-3

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Healthy, run by Centre Hospitalier St Anne at 1 site in France.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Jul 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

fMRI results (time frame: 2 years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04849208, which also lists 27 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Jul 2024.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in