Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Pinning down the theoretical commitments of Bayesian cognitive models

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

Abstract

Mathematical developments in probabilistic inference have led to optimism over the prospects for Bayesian models of cognition. Our target article calls for better differentiation of these technical developments from theoretical contributions. It distinguishes between Bayesian Fundamentalism, which is theoretically limited because of its neglect of psychological mechanism, and Bayesian Enlightenment, which integrates rational and mechanistic considerations and is thus better positioned to advance psychological theory. The commentaries almost uniformly agree that mechanistic grounding is critical to the success of the Bayesian program. Some commentaries raise additional challenges, which we address here. Other commentaries claim that all Bayesian models are mechanistically grounded, while at the same time holding that they should be evaluated only on a computational level. We argue this contradictory stance makes it difficult to evaluate a model's scientific contribution, and that the psychological commitments of Bayesian models need to be made more explicit.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Anderson, J. R. (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R. (1991b) The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review 98:409–29.
Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M. & Yu, A. J. (2007) Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 362:933–42.
Colunga, E. & Smith, L. (2005) From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: A role for associative learning. Psychological Review 112(2):347–82.
Daw, N. & Courville, A. (2007) The pigeon as particle filter. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20:1528–35.
Elliott, S. W. & Anderson, J. R. (1995) Effect of memory decay on predictions from changing categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21:815–36.
Fried, L. S. & Holyoak, K. J. (1984) Induction of category distributions: A framework for classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10:234–57.
Gibson, J. J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Gigerenzer, G. & Brighton, H. (2009) Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1:107–43.
Gold, J. I. & Shadlen, M. N. (2001) Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5:1016.
Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007) Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review 114:211–44.
Kemp, C., Perfors, A. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007) Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science 10:307–21.
Love, B. C. (2005) Environment and goals jointly direct category acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14:195–99.
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.
Murphy, G. L. & Ross, B. H. (2007) Use of single or multiple categories in category-based induction. In: Inductive reasoning: Experimental, developmental, and computational approaches, ed. Feeney, A. & Heit, E., p. 205–25. Cambridge Press.
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007) Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.
Pearl, J. (2000) Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press.
Rescorla, R. A. & Wagner, A. R. (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research, ed. Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F., p. 6499. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Sakamoto, Y., Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2008) Putting the psychology back into psychological models: Mechanistic versus rational approaches. Memory and Cognition 36(6):1057–65.
Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L. & Navarro, D. J. (2010a) Rational approximations to rational models: Alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review 117:1144–67.
Shiffrin, R. M. & Steyvers, M. (1998) The effectiveness of retrieval from memory. In: Rational models of cognition, ed. Oaksford, M. & Chater, N., p. 7395. Oxford University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1938) The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century.
Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Landau, B., Gershkoff-Stowe, L. & Samuelson, L. (2002) Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological Science 13:1319.
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. & Scheines, R. (2000) Causation, prediction, and search, 2nd edition. (original edition published in 1993) MIT Press.
Sternberg, S. (1966) High-speed scanning in human memory. Science 153:652–54.
Wilder, M. H., Jones, M. & Mozer, M. C. (2009) Sequential effects reflect parallel learning of multiple environmental regularities. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22:2053–61.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Pinning down the theoretical commitments of Bayesian cognitive models

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

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.