2018
DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x18001450
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimality is critical when it comes to testing computation-level hypotheses

Abstract: We disagree with Rahnev and Denison that optimality should be abandoned altogether. Rather, we argue that adopting a normative approach enables researchers to test hypotheses about the brain's computational goals, avoids just-so explanations, and offers insights into function that are simply inaccessible to the alternatives proposed by Rahnev and Denison.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 2 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The basic insight of the model, the inevitability of biases, would stand regardless of its specific implementation. And even if future studies would show that some of the model predictions are incorrect, the deviations from these normative predictions will help to guide the search for the mechanisms of working memory and perception (Geurts et al 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The basic insight of the model, the inevitability of biases, would stand regardless of its specific implementation. And even if future studies would show that some of the model predictions are incorrect, the deviations from these normative predictions will help to guide the search for the mechanisms of working memory and perception (Geurts et al 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%