At the present time, there is no question that cochlear implants (CIs) work and often work very well in quiet listening conditions for many profoundly deaf children and adults. The speech and language outcomes data published over the last two decades document quite extensively the clinically significant benefits of CIs. Although there now is a large body of evidence supporting the “efficacy” of CIs as a medical intervention for profound hearing loss in both children and adults, there still remain a number of challenging unresolved clinical and theoretical issues that deal with the “effectiveness” of CIs in individual patients that have not yet been successfully resolved. In this paper, we review recent findings on learning and memory, two central topics in the field of cognition that have been seriously neglected in research on CIs. Our research findings on sequence learning, memory and organization processes, and retrieval strategies used in verbal learning and memory of categorized word lists suggests that basic domain-general learning abilities may be the missing piece of the puzzle in terms of understanding the cognitive factors that underlie the enormous individual differences and variability routinely observed in speech and language outcomes following cochlear implantation.

Statistical modeling is generally meant to describe patterns in data in service of the broader scientific goal of developing theories to explain those patterns. Statistical models support meaningful inferences when models are built so as to align parameters of the model with potential causal mechanisms and how they manifest in data. When statistical models are instead based on assumptions chosen by default, attempts to draw inferences can be uninformative or even paradoxical—in essence, the tail is trying to wag the dog. These issues are illustrated by van Doorn et al. (this issue) in the context of using Bayes Factors to identify effects and interactions in linear mixed models. We show that the problems identified in their applications (along with other problems identified here) can be circumvented by using priors over inherently meaningful units instead of default priors on standardized scales. This case study illustrates how researchers must directly engage with a number of substantive issues in order to support meaningful inferences, of which we highlight two: The first is the problem of coordination, which requires a researcher to specify how the theoretical constructs postulated by a model are functionally related to observable variables. The second is the problem of generalization, which requires a researcher to consider how a model may represent theoretical constructs shared across similar but non-identical situations, along with the fact that model comparison metrics like Bayes Factors do not directly address this form of generalization. For statistical modeling to serve the goals of science, models cannot be based on default assumptions, but should instead be based on an understanding of their coordination function and on how they represent causal mechanisms that may be expected to generalize to other related scenarios.

This article presents a non-technical perspective on two prominent methods for analyzing experimental data in order to select among model classes. Each class consists of model instances; each instance predicts a unique distribution of data outcomes. One method is Bayesian Model Selection (BMS), instantiated with the Bayes factor. The other is based on the Minimum Description Length principle (MDL), instantiated by a variant of Normalized Maximum Likelihood (NML): the variant is termed NML* and takes prior probabilities into account. The methods are closely related. The Bayes factor is a ratio of two values: V1 for model class M1, and V2 for M2. Each Vj is the sum over the instances of Mj, of the joint probabilities (prior times likelihood) for the observed data, normalized by a sum of such sums for all possible data outcomes. NML* is qualitatively similar: The value it assigns to each class is the maximum over the instances in Mi of the joint probability for the observed data normalized by a sum of such maxima for all possible data outcomes. The similarity of BMS to NML* is particularly close when model classes do not have instances that overlap, a way of comparing model classes that we advocate generally. These observations and suggestions are illustrated throughout with use of a simple example borrowed from Heck, Wagenmakers, and Morey (2015) in which the instances predict a binomial distribution of number of success in N trials. The model classes posit the binomial probability of success to lie in various regions of the interval [0,1]. We illustrate the theory and the example not with equations but with tables coupled with simple arithmetic. Using the binomial example we carry out comparisons of BMS and NML* that do and do not involve model classes that overlap, and do and do not have uniform priors. When the classes do not overlap BMS and NML* produce qualitatively similar results.

Specification of the prior distribution for a Bayesian model is a central part of the Bayesian workflow for data analysis, but it is often difficult even for statistical experts. Prior elicitation transforms domain knowledge of various kinds into well-defined prior distributions, and offers a solution to the prior specification problem, in principle. In practice, however, we are still fairly far from having usable prior elicitation tools that could significantly influence the way we build probabilistic models in academia and industry. We lack elicitation methods that integrate well into the Bayesian workflow and perform elicitation efficiently in terms of costs of time and effort. We even lack a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding different facets of the prior elicitation problem.Why are we not widely using prior elicitation? We analyze the state of the art by identifying a range of key aspects of prior knowledge elicitation, from properties of the modelling task and the nature of the priors to the form of interaction with the expert. The existing prior elicitation literature is reviewed and categorized in these terms. This allows recognizing under-studied directions in prior elicitation research, finally leading to a proposal of several new avenues to improve prior elicitation methodology.

Statistical modeling is generally meant to describe patterns in data in service of the broader scientific goal of developing theories to explain those patterns. Statistical models support meaningful inferences when models are built so as to align parameters of the model with potential causal mechanisms and how they manifest in data. When statistical models are instead based on assumptions chosen by default, Attempts to draw inferences can be uninformative or even paradoxical—in essence, the tail is trying to wag the dog.These issues are illustrated by van Doorn et al. (in press) in the context of using BayesFactors to identify effects and interactions in linear mixed models. We show that the problems identified in their applications can be circumvented by using priors over inherently meaningful units instead of default priors on standardized scales. This case study illustrates how researchers must directly engage with a number of substantive issues in order to support meaningful inferences, of which we highlight two: The first is the problem of coordination, which requires a researcher to specify how the theoretical constructs postulated by a model are functionally related to observable variables. The second is the problem of generalization, which requires a researcher to consider how a model may represent theoretical constructs shared across similar but non-identical situations, along with the fact that model comparison metrics like Bayes Factors do not directly address this form of generalization. For statistical modeling to serve the goals of science, models cannot be based on default assumptions, but should instead be based on an understanding of their coordination function and on how they represent causal mechanisms that may be expected to generalize to other related scenarios.