Probability density approximation (PDA) is a nonparametric method of calculating probability densities. When integrated into Bayesian estimation, it allows researchers to fit psychological processes for which analytic probability functions are unavailable, significantly expanding the scope of theories that can be quantitatively tested. PDA is, however, computationally intensive, requiring large numbers of Monte Carlo simulations in order to attain good precision. We introduce Parallel PDA (pPDA), a highly efficient implementation of this method utilizing the Armadillo C++ and CUDA C libraries to conduct millions of model simulations simultaneously in graphics processing units (GPUs). This approach provides a practical solution for rapidly approximating probability densities with high precision. In addition to demonstrating this method, we fit a piecewise linear ballistic accumulator model (Holmes, Trueblood, & Heathcote, 2016) to empirical data. Finally, we conducted simulation studies to investigate various issues associated with PDA and provide guidelines for pPDA applications to other complex cognitive models.
R C++ CUDA GPU Kernel density estimate Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian modeling Probability density approximation
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
W.R.H. was supported by National Science Foundation (USA) Grant SES-1530760. A.H. is supported by Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP160101891
Cisek, P., Puskas, G. A., & El-Murr, S. (2009). Decisions in changing conditions: the urgency-gating model. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 11560–11571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, M. R. (1988). Fitting the ex-Gaussian equation to reaction time distributions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20, 54–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutilh, G., Annis, J., Brown, S. D., Cassey, P., Evans, N. J., Grasman, R. P. P. P., . . . Donkin, C. (2018). The quality of response time data inference: A blinded, collaborative assessment of the validity of cognitive models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1417-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A. (2014). Bayesian data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Heathcote, A., Brown, S. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2015). An introduction to good practices in cognitive modeling. In B. U. Forstmann & E.-J. Wagenmakers (Eds.), An introduction to model-based cognitive neuroscience (pp. 25–48). New York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
Holmes, W. R., Trueblood, J. S., & Heathcote, A. (2016). A new framework for modeling decisions about changing information: The piecewise linear ballistic accumulator model. Cognitive Psychology, 85, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, B., & Tsui, K.-W. (2005). Distributed evolutionary Monte Carlo with applications to Bayesian analysis (Working paper). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Department of Statistics.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 64, 583–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ter Braak, C. J. F. (2006). A Markov Chain Monte Carlo version of the genetic algorithm Differential Evolution: Easy Bayesian computing for real parameter spaces. Statistics and Computing, 16, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thura, D., Beauregard-Racine, J., Fradet, C.-W., & Cisek, P. (2012). Decision-making by urgency gating: Theory and experimental support. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108, 2912–2930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueblood, J. S., Holmes, W. R., Seegmiller, A. C., Douds, J., Compton, M., Szentirmai, E., . . . Eichbaum, Q. (2018). The impact of speed and bias on the cognitive processes of experts and novices in medical image decision-making. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3, 28.Google Scholar