ArticleCognitive science2019
Parameter Inference for Computational Cognitive Models with Approximate Bayesian Computation.
Article in Cognitive science, 2019. 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.
- Hierarchical resource rationality explains human reading behaviour.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Human Mentalizing as Rational Probabilistic Inference.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
- Exploration potential sepsis-ferroptosis mechanisms through the use of CETSA technology and network pharmacology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Mandrake: visualizing microbial population structure by embedding millions of genomes into a low-dimensional representation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Individual Differences in Cue Weighting in Sentence Comprehension: An Evaluation Using Approximate Bayesian Computation.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2022Article
- Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study.Journal of memory and language · 2020Article
- Using approximate Bayesian computation for estimating parameters in the cue-based retrieval model of sentence processing.MethodsX · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper addresses a common challenge with computational cognitive models: identifying parameter values that are both theoretically plausible and generate predictions that match well with empirical data. While computational models can offer deep explanations of cognition, they are computationally complex and often out of reach of traditional parameter fitting methods. Weak methodology may lead to premature rejection of valid models or to acceptance of models that might otherwise be falsified. Mathematically robust fitting methods are, therefore, essential to the progress of computational modeling in cognitive science. In this article, we investigate the capability and role of modern fitting methods-including Bayesian optimization and approximate Bayesian computation-and contrast them to some more commonly used methods: grid search and Nelder-Mead optimization. Our investigation consists of a reanalysis of the fitting of two previous computational models: an Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational model of skill acquisition and a computational rationality model of visual search. The results contrast the efficiency and informativeness of the methods. A key advantage of the Bayesian methods is the ability to estimate the uncertainty of fitted parameter values. We conclude that approximate Bayesian computation is (a) efficient, (b) informative, and (c) offers a path to reproducible results.
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.