Literature DB >> 28476348

The Importance of Falsification in Computational Cognitive Modeling.

Stefano Palminteri1, Valentin Wyart2, Etienne Koechlin3.   

Abstract

In the past decade the field of cognitive sciences has seen an exponential growth in the number of computational modeling studies. Previous work has indicated why and how candidate models of cognition should be compared by trading off their ability to predict the observed data as a function of their complexity. However, the importance of falsifying candidate models in light of the observed data has been largely underestimated, leading to important drawbacks and unjustified conclusions. We argue here that the simulation of candidate models is necessary to falsify models and therefore support the specific claims about cognitive function made by the vast majority of model-based studies. We propose practical guidelines for future research that combine model comparison and falsification.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28476348     DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.03.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci        ISSN: 1364-6613            Impact factor:   20.229


  93 in total

1.  Using reinforcement learning models in social neuroscience: frameworks, pitfalls and suggestions of best practices.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Lukas Lengersdorff; Nace Mikus; Jan Gläscher; Claus Lamm
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Temporal chunking as a mechanism for unsupervised learning of task-sets.

Authors:  Flora Bouchacourt; Stefano Palminteri; Etienne Koechlin; Srdjan Ostojic
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  Computational evidence for hierarchically structured reinforcement learning in humans.

Authors:  Maria K Eckstein; Anne G E Collins
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Continuous track paths reveal additive evidence integration in multistep decision making.

Authors:  Cristian Buc Calderon; Myrtille Dewulf; Wim Gevers; Tom Verguts
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Paranoia as a deficit in non-social belief updating.

Authors:  Erin J Reed; Stefan Uddenberg; Praveen Suthaharan; Christoph D Mathys; Jane R Taylor; Stephanie Mary Groman; Philip R Corlett
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 8.140

6.  How the Level of Reward Awareness Changes the Computational and Electrophysiological Signatures of Reinforcement Learning.

Authors:  Camile M C Correa; Samuel Noorman; Jun Jiang; Stefano Palminteri; Michael X Cohen; Maël Lebreton; Simon van Gaal
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Looking for Mr(s) Right: Decision bias can prevent us from finding the most attractive face.

Authors:  Nicholas Furl; Bruno B Averbeck; Ryan T McKay
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Improving the Reliability of Computational Analyses: Model-Based Planning and Its Relationship With Compulsivity.

Authors:  Vanessa M Brown; Jiazhou Chen; Claire M Gillan; Rebecca B Price
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging       Date:  2020-01-13

9.  The Outcome-Representation Learning Model: A Novel Reinforcement Learning Model of the Iowa Gambling Task.

Authors:  Nathaniel Haines; Jasmin Vassileva; Woo-Young Ahn
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2018-10-05

10.  Visual attention modulates the integration of goal-relevant evidence and not value.

Authors:  Pradyumna Sepulveda; Marius Usher; Ned Davies; Amy A Benson; Pietro Ortoleva; Benedetto De Martino
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 8.140

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.