Literature DB >> 25898807

Rational use of cognitive resources: levels of analysis between the computational and the algorithmic.

Thomas L Griffiths1, Falk Lieder, Noah D Goodman.   

Abstract

Marr's levels of analysis-computational, algorithmic, and implementation-have served cognitive science well over the last 30 years. But the recent increase in the popularity of the computational level raises a new challenge: How do we begin to relate models at different levels of analysis? We propose that it is possible to define levels of analysis that lie between the computational and the algorithmic, providing a way to build a bridge between computational- and algorithmic-level models. The key idea is to push the notion of rationality, often used in defining computational-level models, deeper toward the algorithmic level. We offer a simple recipe for reverse-engineering the mind's cognitive strategies by deriving optimal algorithms for a series of increasingly more realistic abstract computational architectures, which we call "resource-rational analysis."
Copyright © 2015 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.

Keywords:  Algorithmic level; Bayesian models of cognition; Computational level; Levels of analysis; Rational process models; Resource-rational models

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25898807     DOI: 10.1111/tops.12142

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Top Cogn Sci        ISSN: 1756-8757


  49 in total

1.  Selective maintenance of value information helps resolve the exploration/exploitation dilemma.

Authors:  Michael N Hallquist; Alexandre Y Dombrovski
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2018-11-28

2.  Addiction beyond pharmacological effects: The role of environment complexity and bounded rationality.

Authors:  Dimitri Ognibene; Vincenzo G Fiore; Xiaosi Gu
Journal:  Neural Netw       Date:  2019-05-08

3.  Overrepresentation of extreme events in decision making reflects rational use of cognitive resources.

Authors:  Falk Lieder; Thomas L Griffiths; Ming Hsu
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 4.  The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources.

Authors:  Falk Lieder; Thomas L Griffiths; Quentin J M Huys; Noah D Goodman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

5.  A Control Theoretic Model of Adaptive Learning in Dynamic Environments.

Authors:  Harrison Ritz; Matthew R Nassar; Michael J Frank; Amitai Shenhav
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Impairments in Probabilistic Prediction and Bayesian Learning Can Explain Reduced Neural Semantic Priming in Schizophrenia.

Authors:  Victoria Sharpe; Kirsten Weber; Gina R Kuperberg
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 9.306

Review 7.  Cognitive computational neuroscience.

Authors:  Nikolaus Kriegeskorte; Pamela K Douglas
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 24.884

8.  What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?

Authors:  Gina R Kuperberg; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 2.331

9.  A unified account of numerosity perception.

Authors:  Samuel J Cheyette; Steven T Piantadosi
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-09-14

10.  Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making.

Authors:  Dobromir Rahnev; Rachel N Denison
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 12.579

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.