Literature DB >> 27574699

Taming the beast: extracting generalizable knowledge from computational models of cognition.

Matthew R Nassar1, Michael J Frank1.   

Abstract

Generalizing knowledge from experimental data requires constructing theories capable of explaining observations and extending beyond them. Computational modeling offers formal quantitative methods for generating and testing theories of cognition and neural processing. These techniques can be used to extract general principles from specific experimental measurements, but introduce dangers inherent to theory: model-based analyses are conditioned on a set of fixed assumptions that impact the interpretations of experimental data. When these conditions are not met, model-based results can be misleading or biased. Recent work in computational modeling has highlighted the implications of this problem and developed new methods for minimizing its negative impact. Here we discuss the issues that arise when data is interpreted through models and strategies for avoiding misinterpretation of data through model fitting.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27574699      PMCID: PMC5001502          DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci        ISSN: 2352-1546


  40 in total

1.  When a good fit can be bad.

Authors:  Mark A. Pitt; In Jae Myung
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2002-10-01       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  Midbrain dopamine neurons encode a quantitative reward prediction error signal.

Authors:  Hannah M Bayer; Paul W Glimcher
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2005-07-07       Impact factor: 17.173

3.  Dynamic response-by-response models of matching behavior in rhesus monkeys.

Authors:  Brian Lau; Paul W Glimcher
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Individual differences and the neural representations of reward expectation and reward prediction error.

Authors:  Michael X Cohen
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 5.  Axiomatic methods, dopamine and reward prediction error.

Authors:  Andrew Caplin; Mark Dean
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2008-08-12       Impact factor: 6.627

6.  Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory.

Authors:  Weiwei Zhang; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 7.  Modulators of decision making.

Authors:  Kenji Doya
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 24.884

8.  Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans.

Authors:  Nathaniel D Daw; John P O'Doherty; Peter Dayan; Ben Seymour; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2006-06-15       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Learning the value of information in an uncertain world.

Authors:  Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Mark E Walton; Matthew F S Rushworth
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2007-08-05       Impact factor: 24.884

10.  Why most published research findings are false.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2005-08-30       Impact factor: 11.613

View more
  20 in total

1.  Value-based attentional capture affects multi-alternative decision making.

Authors:  Sebastian Gluth; Mikhail S Spektor; Jörg Rieskamp
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 8.140

2.  Catecholaminergic challenge uncovers distinct Pavlovian and instrumental mechanisms of motivated (in)action.

Authors:  Jennifer C Swart; Monja I Froböse; Jennifer L Cook; Dirk Em Geurts; Michael J Frank; Roshan Cools; Hanneke Em den Ouden
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  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

4.  Working Memory Load Strengthens Reward Prediction Errors.

Authors:  Anne G E Collins; Brittany Ciullo; Michael J Frank; David Badre
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Rumination Derails Reinforcement Learning with Possible Implications for Ineffective Behavior.

Authors:  Peter Hitchcock; Evan Forman; Nina Rothstein; Fengqing Zhang; John Kounios; Yael Niv; Chris Sims
Journal:  Clin Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-11-01

6.  The drift diffusion model as the choice rule in reinforcement learning.

Authors:  Mads Lund Pedersen; Michael J Frank; Guido Biele
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-08

7.  Balancing exploration and exploitation with information and randomization.

Authors:  Robert C Wilson; Elizabeth Bonawitz; Vincent D Costa; R Becket Ebitz
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2020-11-06

8.  Extracting the dynamics of behavior in sensory decision-making experiments.

Authors:  Nicholas A Roy; Ji Hyun Bak; Athena Akrami; Carlos D Brody; Jonathan W Pillow
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 9.  The computational challenge of social learning.

Authors:  Oriel FeldmanHall; Matthew R Nassar
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  Novelty is not surprise: Human exploratory and adaptive behavior in sequential decision-making.

Authors:  He A Xu; Alireza Modirshanechi; Marco P Lehmann; Wulfram Gerstner; Michael H Herzog
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.