Skip to main content
Log in

Moving beyond qualitative evaluations of Bayesian models of cognition

  • Theoretical Review
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bayesian models of cognition provide a powerful way to understand the behavior and goals of individuals from a computational point of view. Much of the focus in the Bayesian cognitive modeling approach has been on qualitative model evaluations, where predictions from the models are compared to data that is often averaged over individuals. In many cognitive tasks, however, there are pervasive individual differences. We introduce an approach to directly infer individual differences related to subjective mental representations within the framework of Bayesian models of cognition. In this approach, Bayesian data analysis methods are used to estimate cognitive parameters and motivate the inference process within a Bayesian cognitive model. We illustrate this integrative Bayesian approach on a model of memory. We apply the model to behavioral data from a memory experiment involving the recall of heights of people. A cross-validation analysis shows that the Bayesian memory model with inferred subjective priors predicts withheld data better than a Bayesian model where the priors are based on environmental statistics. In addition, the model with inferred priors at the individual subject level led to the best overall generalization performance, suggesting that individual differences are important to consider in Bayesian models of cognition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. From now on, we will refer to observed variables as known variables to avoid confusion with the term observer.

  2. We can also extend the approach and assume that multiple samples are stored depending on the amount of study time. Since study time is not a relevant factor in the current experimental approach, we have restricted the model to a single sample.

  3. The results show that the intercept for female was smaller than that for male. This difference in intercepts by relative study size supports the prediction of gender-level prior effects. A one-way ANOVA with two levels (female, male) found a significant effect of category [F (1, 42) = 25.83, p < .001].

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J. S., & Davis, C. J. (2012a). Bayesian just-so stories in psychology and neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 389–414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J. S., & Davis, C. J. (2012b). Is that what Bayesians believe? Reply to Griffiths, Chater, Norris, and Pouget 2012. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 423–426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daunizeau, J., den Ouden, H. E. M., Pessiglione, M., Kiebel, S. J., Stephan, K. E., et al. (2010). Observing the Observer (I): Meta-Bayesian Models of Learning and Decision-Making. PLoS ONE, 5(12).

  • Estes, W. K. (1956). The problem of inference from curves based on group data. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003). Bayesian data analysis. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemmer, P., & Steyvers, M. (2009). A Bayesian Account of Reconstructive Memory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 189–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huszár, F., Noppeney, U. & Lengyel, M. (2010). Mind reading by machine learning: A doubly Bayesian method for inferring mental representations. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2810-2815.

  • Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. (2000). Why do categories affect stimulus judgment? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 220–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011). Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment? On the Explanatory Status and Theoretical Contributions of Bayesian Models of Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(4), 169–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kato, K., & Higashiyama, A. (1998). Estimation of height for persons in pictures. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1318–1328.

  • Kruschke, J. K. (2010). Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS. Academic Press: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. D. (2008). Three case studies in the Bayesian analysis of cognitive models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. D., & Sarnecka, B. W. (2010). A model of knower-level behavior in number-concept development. Cognitive Science, 34, 51–67.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. D., & Webb, M. R. (2005). Modeling individual differences in cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(4), 605–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodewyckx, T., Kim, W., Lee, M. D., Tuerlinckx, F., Kuppens, P., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). A tutorial on Bayes factor estimation with the product space method. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55, 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. F., & Davis, E. (2013). How robust are probabilistic models of cognition. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2351–2360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Sanborn, A. N. (2012). Testing the efficiency of Markov chain Monte Carlo with people using facial affect categories. Cognitive Science, 36, 150–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, M., Fryar, C. D., Ogden, C. L., & Flegal, K. M. (2008). Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2003-2006. National Health Statistics Reports, 10, 1265–1272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozer, M., Pashler, H., & Homaei, H. (2008). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition: The wisdom of individuals or crowds? Cognitive Science, 32, 1133–1147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, D. J., Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Lee, M. D. (2006). Modeling individual differences using Dirichlet processes. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. E., Biernat, M. R., & Manis, M. (1990). Everyday base rates (sex stereotypes): Potent and resilient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 664–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (Eds.). (1998). Rational models of cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, M. A., Myung, I. J., & Zhang, S. (2002). Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. Psychological Review, 109, 472–491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, M. (2003). JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Hornik, K., Leisch, F., Zeileis, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing.

  • Sanborn, A. N., & Griffiths, T. L. (2008). Markov chain Monte Carlo with people. In J. C. Platt, D. Koller, Y. Singer, & S. Roweis (Eds), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 20, 369–376. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L., & Shiffrin, R. (2010). Uncovering mental representations with Markov chain Monte Carlo. Cognitive Psychology, 60, 63–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM: Retrieving Effectively from Memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 145–166.

    Article  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(4), 583–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steyvers, M., Griffiths, T. L., & Dennis, S. (2006). Probabilistic inference in human semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 327–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steyvers, M., & Griffiths, T. L. (2008). Rational Analysis as a Link between Human Memory and Information Retrieval. In N. Chater & M. Oaksford (Eds.), The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects from Rational Models of Cognition (pp. 327–347). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyvers, M., Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2009). A Bayesian analysis of human decision-making on bandit problems. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 168–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 629–641.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J., & Griffiths, T. L. (2010). A rational analysis of the effects of memory biases on serial reproduction. Cognitive Psychology, 60, 107–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, N. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and episodic retrieval: Examining the dynamics of delayed and continuous distractor free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 1020–1034.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, D., Lee, M. D., Dry, M., Hughes, P., & McMahon, J. A. (2006). The aesthetic appeal of minimal structures: Judging the attractiveness of solutions to Traveling Salesperson problems. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenmakers, E.-J., Lodewyckx, T., Kuriyal, H., & Grasman, R. (2010). Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: A tutorial on the Savage-Dickey method. Cognitive Psychology, 60, 158–189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pernille Hemmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hemmer, P., Tauber, S. & Steyvers, M. Moving beyond qualitative evaluations of Bayesian models of cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 614–628 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0725-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0725-z

Keywords

Navigation