ArticleComputational brain & behavior2019
On Testing and Developing Cognitive Models.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The target article, "Robust Modeling in Cognitive Science", proposes a number of recommended practices in computational modeling in response to the growing "crisis of confidence" facing many scientific disciplines, including psychology and neuroscience. Those of us who do modeling, write about modeling, teach modeling, and mentor modelers worry deeply about best practices and any new suggestions for making modeling more transparent, trusted, and robust is welcome. Many of the recommendations seem uncontroversial. My commentary focuses on forms of preregistration and postregistration, which constitute three of the four key ideas highlighted as take-home recommendations at the conclusion of the target article. I have chosen to consider these recommendations by reflecting on my own past experiences developing new models and modeling approaches.
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.