Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29193776›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science2018

Bayesian statistical approaches to evaluating cognitive models.

Jeffrey Annis, Thomas J Palmeri

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Troubleshooting Bayesian cognitive models.Psychological methods · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Modeling memory dynamics in visual expertise.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. On Testing and Developing Cognitive Models.Computational brain & behavior · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jeffrey AnnisDepartment of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Thomas J PalmeriDepartment of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.

Funding

Shop Module CoreP30EY008126 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Kevin L Schey · 1989 to 2026
$19.6M
Training in Vision ResearchT32EY007135 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI GEOFFREY F WOODMAN · 1994 to 2026
$5.8M
Stochastic Models of Visual SearchR01EY021833 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LOGAN, GORDON DENNIS, PALMERI, THOMAS · 2011 to 2023
$3.3M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY008126NEI NIH HHS R01 EY021833NEI NIH HHS T32 EY007135
6 · The paper itself

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

Bayes TheoremModels, PsychologicalReaction TimeCognitionDecision MakingHumans

Identifiers

PMID29193776
PMCPMC5814360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.