ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science2018
Bayesian statistical approaches to evaluating cognitive models.
Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learn how to be effective: neural and computational insights into charity efficiency learning.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
- Troubleshooting Bayesian cognitive models.Psychological methods · 2025Article
- Developmental patterns of inhibition and fronto-basal-ganglia white matter organisation in healthy children and children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Confidence Is Influenced by Evidence Accumulation Time in Dynamical Decision Models.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- Listening efficiency in adult cochlear-implant users compared with normally-hearing controls at ecologically relevant signal-to-noise ratios.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- The Bayesian causal inference model benefits from an informed prior to predict proprioceptive drift in the rubber foot illusion.Cognitive processing · 2019Article
- Modeling memory dynamics in visual expertise.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2019Article
- Thermodynamic Integration and Steppingstone Sampling Methods for Estimating Bayes Factors: A Tutorial.Journal of mathematical psychology · 2019Article
- On Testing and Developing Cognitive Models.Computational brain & behavior · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive models aim to explain complex human behavior in terms of hypothesized mechanisms of the mind. These mechanisms can be formalized in terms of mathematical structures containing parameters that are theoretically meaningful. For example, in the case of perceptual decision making, model parameters might correspond to theoretical constructs like response bias, evidence quality, response caution, and the like. Formal cognitive models go beyond verbal models in that cognitive mechanisms are instantiated in terms of mathematics and they go beyond statistical models in that cognitive model parameters are psychologically interpretable. We explore three key elements used to formally evaluate cognitive models: parameter estimation, model prediction, and model selection. We compare and contrast traditional approaches with Bayesian statistical approaches to performing each of these three elements. Traditional approaches rely on an array of seemingly ad hoc techniques, whereas Bayesian statistical approaches rely on a single, principled, internally consistent system. We illustrate the Bayesian statistical approach to evaluating cognitive models using a running example of the Linear Ballistic Accumulator model of decision making (Brown SD, Heathcote A. The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation. Cogn Psychol 2008, 57:153-178). WIREs Cogn Sci 2018, 9:e1458. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1458 This article is categorized under: Neuroscience > Computation Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making Psychology > Theory and Methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.