Promoting Cumulation in models of the human mind
Tóm tắt
Lee et al. (2019) address a critical issue in cognitive science—defining scientific practices that will promote rigor and confidence in our science by ensuring that our mechanisms, models, and theories are adequately described and validated to facilitate replication and to foster trust. They provide a number of concrete suggestions to advance our science along that path. The recommendations emphasize preregistration of models and predictions combined with more comprehensive model evaluation, including published descriptions of exploratory analyses, alternative mechanisms, and model assumptions. These are excellent recommendations, and general adoption of such practices will benefit model assessment and validation methodologies in cognitive science research while improving trust in published reports of computational and mathematical accounts of cognitive phenomena. However, it is unclear that these strategies alone will resolve many other important challenges faced in developing quantitative theories of human cognition and behavior. For example, addressing the crisis of confidence will not, by itself, move the science toward the broader goal of developing more comprehensive and cumulative theories of the nature of the human mind. Cognitive modeling is a critical methodology for achieving that goal. However, to realize the potential will require changes not only to how we evaluate our models, but also to how we measure progress and scientific contribution.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Box, G. E. P. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 791–799.
Gluck, K. A., & Gunzelmann, G. (2013). Computational process modeling and cognitive stressors: background and prospects for application in cognitive engineering. In J. D. Lee & A. Kirlik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive engineering (pp. 424–432). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gluck, K. A., & Pew, R. W. (Eds.). (2005). Modeling human behavior with integrated cognitive architectures: comparison, evaluation, and validation. Psychology Press.
Gunzelmann, G. (2013). Motivations and goals in developing integrative models of human cognition. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 30–31). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
Lee, M.D., Criss, A.H., Devezer, B. et al. (2019). Robust Modeling in Cognitive Science. Computational Brain and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00029-y.
McClelland, J. L. (2009). The place of modeling in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 11–38.
Newell, A. (1973). You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win: projective comments on the papers of this symposium. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283–308). New York: Academic Press.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Richman, H. B., & Simon, H. A. (1989). Context effects in letter perception: comparison of two theories. Psychological Review, 96(3), 417–432.
Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107, 358–367.
Veksler, V. D., Myers, C. W., & Gluck, K. A. (2015). Model flexibility analysis. Psychological Review, 122(4), 755–769.
Walsh, M. M., Gunzelmann, G., & Van Dongen, H. P. A. (2017). Computational cognitive models of the temporal dynamics of fatigue from sleep loss. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1785–1807.