ArticleCurrent directions in psychological science2024
How Can Deep Neural Networks Inform Theory in Psychological Science?
Article in Current directions in psychological science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissociable impacts of perceived race and ascribed status in event-related brain potentials and multivariate network activity.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Individual differences in artificial neural networks capture individual differences in human behavior.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Human-like individual differences emerge from random weight initializations in neural networks.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Evolution of diverse (and advanced) cognitive abilities through adaptive fine-tuning of learning and chunking mechanisms.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the last decade, deep neural networks (DNNs) have transformed the state of the art in artificial intelligence. In domains like language production and reasoning, long considered uniquely human abilities, contemporary models have proven capable of strikingly human-like performance. However, in contrast to classical symbolic models, neural networks can be inscrutable even to their designers, making it unclear what significance, if any, they have for theories of human cognition. Two extreme reactions are common. Neural network enthusiasts argue that, because the inner workings of DNNs do not seem to resemble any of the traditional constructs of psychological or linguistic theory, their success renders these theories obsolete and motivates a radical paradigm shift. Neural network skeptics instead take this inability to interpret DNNs in psychological terms to mean that their success is irrelevant to psychological science. In this paper, we review recent work that suggests that the internal mechanisms of DNNs can, in fact, be interpreted in the functional terms characteristic of psychological explanations. We argue that this undermines the shared assumption of both extremes and opens the door for DNNs to inform theories of cognition and its development.
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.