Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition

  • Matt Jones (a1) and Bradley C. Love (a2)
Abstract
Abstract

The prominence of Bayesian modeling of cognition has increased recently largely because of mathematical advances in specifying and deriving predictions from complex probabilistic models. Much of this research aims to demonstrate that cognitive behavior can be explained from rational principles alone, without recourse to psychological or neurological processes and representations. We note commonalities between this rational approach and other movements in psychology – namely, Behaviorism and evolutionary psychology – that set aside mechanistic explanations or make use of optimality assumptions. Through these comparisons, we identify a number of challenges that limit the rational program's potential contribution to psychological theory. Specifically, rational Bayesian models are significantly unconstrained, both because they are uninformed by a wide range of process-level data and because their assumptions about the environment are generally not grounded in empirical measurement. The psychological implications of most Bayesian models are also unclear. Bayesian inference itself is conceptually trivial, but strong assumptions are often embedded in the hypothesis sets and the approximation algorithms used to derive model predictions, without a clear delineation between psychological commitments and implementational details. Comparing multiple Bayesian models of the same task is rare, as is the realization that many Bayesian models recapitulate existing (mechanistic level) theories. Despite the expressive power of current Bayesian models, we argue they must be developed in conjunction with mechanistic considerations to offer substantive explanations of cognition. We lay out several means for such an integration, which take into account the representations on which Bayesian inference operates, as well as the algorithms and heuristics that carry it out. We argue this unification will better facilitate lasting contributions to psychological theory, avoiding the pitfalls that have plagued previous theoretical movements.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. R. Anderson (1991b) The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review 98:409–29.

J. R. Anderson , D. Bothell , C. Lebiere & M. Matessa (1998) An integrated theory of list memory. Journal of Memory and Language 38:341–80.

J. R. Anderson & L. J. Schooler (1991) Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science 2:396408.

J. M. Beck , W. J. Ma , R. Kiani , T. Hanks , A. K. Churchland , J. Roitman , M. N. Shadlen , P. E. Latham & A. Pouget (2008) Probabilistic population codes for Bayesian decision making. Neuron 60:1142–52.

S. D. Brown & M. Steyvers (2009) Detecting and predicting changes. Cognitive Psychology 58:4967.

A. Caramazza & J. R. Shelton (1998) Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10:134.

N. Chater & M. Oaksford (2008) The probabilistic mind: Prospects for a Bayesian cognitive science. In: The probabilistic mind: Prospects for rational models of cognition, ed. M. Oaksford & N. Chater , p. 331. Oxford University Press.

N. Chater , F. Reali & M. H. Christiansen (2009) Restrictions on biological adaptation in language evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:1015–20.

N. Chater , J. Tenenbaum & A. Yuille (2006) Probabilistic models of cognition: Conceptual foundations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(7):287–91.

C. Conati , A. Gertner , K. VanLehn & M. Druzdzel (1997) On-line student modeling for coached problem solving using Bayesian networks. In: User modeling: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, UM97, Berlin, 1997, pp. 231–42, ed. A. Jameson , C. Paris & C. Tasso . Springer.

F. Crick (1989) The recent excitement about neural networks. Nature 337:129–32.

D. Danks (2008) Rational analyses, instrumentalism, and implementations. In: The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science, ed. M. Oaksford & N. Chater , p. 5975. Oxford University Press.

N. D. Daw , A. C. Courville & P. Dayan (2008) Semi-rational models: The case of trial order. In: The probabilistic mind: Prospects for rational models of cognition, ed. M. Oaksford & N. Chater , p. 431–52. Oxford University Press.

N. D. Daw , Y. Niv & P. Dayan (2005) Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature Neuroscience 8:1704–11.

J. T. Devlin , L. M. Gonnerman , E. S. Andersen & M. S. Seidenberg (1998) Category-specific semantic deficits in focal and widespread brain damage: A computational account. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10:7794.

A. M. Dickinson (2000) The historical roots of organizational behavior management in the private sector: The 1950s–1980s. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 20(3/4): 958.

B. B. Doll , W. J. Jacobs , A. G. Sanfey & M. J. Frank (2009) Instructional control of reinforcement learning: A behavioral and neurocomputational investigation. Brain Research 1299:7494.

A. Doucet , S. Godsill & C. Andrieu (2000) On sequential Monte Carlo sampling methods for Bayesian filtering. Statistics and Computing 10:197208.

J. L. Elman (1990) Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14:179211.

J. L. Elman (1993) Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition 48:7199.

J. Engelfriet & G. Rozenberg (1997) Node replacement graph grammars. In: Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation, vol. 1, ed. G. Rozenberg , p. 194. World Scientific.

B. Fitelson (1999) The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66:362–78.

J. A. Fodor & Z. Pylyshyn (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition 28: 371.

W. S. Geisler , J. S. Perry , B. J. Super & D. P. Gallogly (2001) Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance. Vision Research 41:711–24.

S. Geman , E. Bienenstock & R. Doursat (1992) Neural networks and the bias/variance dilemma. Neural Computation 4:158.

G. Gigerenzer & H. Brighton (2009) Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1:107–43.

J. I. Gold & M. N. Shadlen (2001) Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5:1016.

S. J. Gould & R. Lewontin (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 205:581–98.

T. L. Griffiths , M. Steyvers & J. B. Tenenbaum (2007) Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review 114:211–44.

T. L. Griffiths & J. B. Tenenbaum (2006) Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychological Science 17(9):767–73.

T. L. Griffiths & J. B. Tenenbaum (2009) Theory-based causal induction. Psychological Review 116:661716.

R. M. Hogarth & N. Karelaia (2005) Ignoring information in binary choice with continuous variables: When is less “more”? Journal of Mathematical Psychology 49:115–24.

H. Jeffreys (1946) An invariant form for the prior probability in estimation problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 186:453–61.

M. F. Joanisse & M. S. Seidenberg (2003) Phonology and syntax in specific language impairment: Evidence from a connectionist model. Brain and Language 86:4056.

H. Köver , S. Bao (2010) Cortical plasticity as a mechanism for storing Bayesian priors in sensory perception. PLoS ONE 5(5):e10497.

G. F. Marcus (1998) Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology 37:243–82.

E. K. Miller & J. D. Cohen (2001) An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience 24:167202.

G. A. Miller (2003) The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:141–44.

M. C. Mozer , H. Pashler & H. Homaei (2008) Optimal predictions in everyday cognition: The wisdom of individuals or crowds? Cognitive Science 32:1133–47.

G. L. Murphy (1993) A rational theory of concepts. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 29:327–59.

M. Oaksford & N. Chater (2007) Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.

M. A. Pitt , I. J. Myung & S. Zhang (2002) Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. Psychological Review 109:472–91.

D. C. Plaut , J. L. McClelland , M. S. Seidenberg & K. Patterson (1996) Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review 103:56115.

E. M. Pothos & N. Chater (2002) A simplicity principle in unsupervised human categorization. Cognitive Science 26:303–43.

N. P. Rougier , D. Noelle , T. S. Braver , J. D. Cohen & R. C. O'Reilly (2005) Prefrontal cortex and the flexibility of cognitive control: Rules without symbols. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102:7338–43.

Y. Sakamoto , M. Jones & B. C. Love (2008) Putting the psychology back into psychological models: Mechanistic versus rational approaches. Memory and Cognition 36(6):1057–65.

A. N. Sanborn , T. L. Griffiths & R. M. Shiffrin (2010b) Uncovering mental representations with Markov chain Monte Carlo. Cognitive Psychology 60:63106.

B. F. Skinner (1957) Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

S. A. Sloman & P. M. Fernbach (2008) The value of rational analysis: An assessment of causal reasoning and learning. In: The probabilistic mind: Prospects for rational models of cognition, ed. N. Chater & M Oaksford , p. 485500. Oxford University Press.

L. B. Smith , S. S. Jones , B. Landau , L. Gershkoff-Stowe & L. Samuelson (2002) Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological Science 13:1319.

P. K. Smith (1982) Does play matter? Functional and evolutionary aspects of animal and human play. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:139–84.

P. Smolensky (1988) On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11:123.

D. M. Sobel , J. B. Tenenbaum & A. Gopnik (2004) Children's causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards blocking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers. Cognitive Science 28(3):303–33.

D. Sperber & L. A. Hirschfeld (2003) The cognitive foundations of cultural stability and diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8:4046.

M. Steyvers , J. B. Tenenbaum , E.-J. Wagenmakers & B. Blum (2003) Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cognitive Science 27:453–89.

J. B. Tenenbaum , T. L. Griffiths & C. Kemp (2006) Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:309–18.

J. N. Wood & J. Grafman (2003) Human prefrontal cortex: Processing and representational perspectives. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 4:129–47.

F. Xu & J. B. Tenenbaum (2007b) Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review 114(2):245–72.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 18
Total number of PDF views: 162 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 565 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd April 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.