Bayesian statistical approaches to evaluating cognitive models

Abstract

Cognitive models aim to explain complex human behavior in terms of hypothesized mechanisms of the mind. These mechanisms can be formalized in terms of mathematical structures containing parameters that are theoretically meaningful. For example, in the case of perceptual decision making, model parameters might correspond to theoretical constructs like response bias, evidence quality, response caution, and the like. Formal cognitive models go beyond verbal models in that cognitive mechanisms are instantiated in terms of mathematics and they go beyond statistical models in that cognitive model parameters are psychologically interpretable. We explore three key elements used to formally evaluate cognitive models: parameter estimation, model prediction, and model selection. We compare and contrast traditional approaches with Bayesian statistical approaches to performing each of these three elements. Traditional approaches rely on an array of seemingly ad hoc techniques, whereas Bayesian statistical approaches rely on a single, principled, internally consistent system. We illustrate the Bayesian statistical approach to evaluating cognitive models using a running example of the Linear Ballistic Accumulator model of decision making (Brown SD, Heathcote A. The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation. Cogn Psychol 2008, 57:153-178). WIREs Cogn Sci 2018, 9:e1458. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1458 This article is categorized under: Neuroscience > Computation Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making Psychology > Theory and Methods.

Neurocomputational approaches to social behavior

“…Fitting this model to observed choices with wellestablished computational methods (reviewed e.g. in [11]) makes it possible to infer the strength of the corresponding motive. For example, a popular type of such models quantifies inequity aversion, the preference for maximizing fairness (i.e., minimizing inequity) in the resource distribution, by including the payoff difference between two participants as a component into the utility function ( [12], see Figure 1A).…”

Troubleshooting Bayesian cognitive models

“…Those that focus on Bayesian cognitive model design (Lee, 2008;Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014;Matzke et al, 2018;Shiffrin et al, 2008) and development (Annis & Palmeri, 2018;Greene & Rhodes, 2020;Lee & Vanpaemel, 2018;Rouder & Lu, 2005;Schad et al, 2021;Shiffrin et al, 2008;Vanpaemel, 2010) tend to underspecify the model-checking steps required before a model may be used for inference. 3 This is complicated by the fact that model-checking requirements have recently been improved, such that failure modes that researchers were not previously able to be detected may now be reliably exposed.…”

In Search of a Unified Theory of Sensory Perception: Possible Links between the Vibrational Mechanism of Olfaction and the Evolution of Language

“…Moreover, local adaptations to vocal communications within a population, which overcome the difficulties posed by human disturbances and changes in the environment, become synonymous to 'dialects' which are found in different, isolated populations of songbird species (Derryberry 2009;Podos and Warren 2007;Baker and Cunningham 1985). Furthermore, any physical factor such as body size or conformation of the vocal tract, which may affect the frequency-related parameters of an individual's vocalisations, can be accounted for by appealing to the more recent developments in cognitive science, which view cognition as being a process based on neural net functioning and Bayesian probabilities, rather than a series of computational functions (Annis and Palmeri 2018;Clark 2013). Traditional theories of communication assume that a larger body size results in a lower frequency of vocalisations (Fitch 1997).…”