The generality of empirical and theoretical explanations of behavior

Abstract

For theoretical explanations of data, parameter values estimated from a single dependent measure from one procedure are used to predict alternative dependent measures from many procedures. Theoretical explanations were compared to empirical explanations of data in which known functions and principles were used to fit only selected dependent measures. The comparison focused on the ability of theoretical and empirical explanations to generalize across samples of the data, across dependent measures of behavior, and across different procedures. Rat and human data from fixedinterval and peak procedures, in which principles (e.g., scalar timing) are well known, were described and fit by a theory with independent modules for perception, memory, and decision. The theoretical approach consisted of fitting closed-form equations of the theory to response rate gradients calculated from the data, simulating responses using parameter values previously estimated, and comparing theoretical predictions with dependent measures not used to estimate parameters. Although the empirical and theoretical explanations provided similar fits to the response rate gradients that generalized across samples and had the same number of parameters, only the theoretical explanation generalized across procedures and dependent measures. KeywordsCross-validation; modular theory; timing theories; theory evaluation Empirical explanations provide predictions of observed behavior without intervening variables; theoretical explanations also provide predictions of observed behavior but contain intervening variables that may represent psychological or neural processes. The goal was to compare empirical and theoretical explanations of behavior using an example of each. This paper describes an approach to determine the degree to which theories of behavior actually predict behavior.Over the past few years we have been developing what we consider to be a theoretical explanation of behavior (Guilhardi, Yi, & Church, 2007). More recently, however, we found it necessary to better understand the specific characteristics of theoretical explanations that justify their relatively complex structures that contain modules that represent different intervening processes, and that are well-specified by equations. The following statement was Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. taken from an editor's letter rejecting a paper that was submitted to a well respected journal: "Neither reviewer is greatly impressed by your model. Its assumptions seem arbitrary, or not obviously grounded in timing theory. Is it any more t...

Amyloid-beta accumulation, neurogenesis, behavior, and the age of rats.

“…Although this is a curve-fitting approach, its strength is that it can be derived from a computational model of learning and performance (Guilhardi, Yi, & Church, 2007). The added strength of a computational model is its generality, that is, it can make predictions about all summary measures based upon the primary data (Guilhardi & Church, 2009).…”

Properties of the Internal Clock: First- and Second-Order Principles of Subjective Time

“…Most researchers agree that there is no single neurological locus that serves as the core (master) clock in the brain, although the primordial circadian clock in the suprachiasmic nucleus can regularly and persistently modulate a variety of species' sleep-wake to day-night cycles (even in conditions devoid of light-dark cues). However, to account for interval timing ability, which has been unequivocally demonstrated, some sort of general-purpose, cognitively controlled internal clock is required (Agostino et al 2011a;Guilhardi & Church 2009;Hinton & Meck 1997a,b;Lewis & Meck 2012;Lewis & Miall 2003;Matell & Meck 2000;Meck 1984; The information-processing model of interval timing as specified by scalar timing theory and other internal clock theories of psychological time. Adapted from Church (1984), , Meck (1984), and Treisman (1963Treisman ( , 1984.…”