Parameters, Predictions, and Evidence in Computational Modeling: A Statistical View Informed by ACT-R

Model validation in computational cognitive psychology often relies on methods drawn from the testing of theories in experimental physics. However, applications of these methods to computational models in typical cognitive experiments can hide multiple, plausible sources of variation arising from human participants and from stochastic cognitive theories, encouraging a "model fixed, data variable" paradigm that makes it difficult to interpret model predictions and to account for individual differences. This article proposes a likelihood-based, "data fixed, model variable" paradigm in which models are treated as stochastic processes in experiments with participant-to-participant variation that can be applied to a broad range of mechanistic cognitive architectures. This article discusses the implementation and implications of this view in model validation, with a concrete focus on a simple class of ACT-R models of cognition. This article is not intended as a recipe for broad application of these preliminary, proof-of-concept methods, but as a framework for communication between statisticians searching for interesting problems in the cognitive modeling sphere, and cognitive modelers interested in generalizing from deterministic to stochastic model validation, in the face of random variation in human experimental data.

[1]  J. Hodges,et al.  Counting degrees of freedom in hierarchical and other richly-parameterised models , 2001 .

[2]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Statistical Techniques For Comparing ACT-R Models of Cognitive Performance , 2003 .

[3]  Richard J. Patz,et al.  The Hierarchical Rater Model for Rated Test Items and its Application to Large-Scale Educational Assessment Data , 2002 .

[4]  Peter Green,et al.  Markov chain Monte Carlo in Practice , 1996 .

[5]  P. Holland On the sampling theory roundations of item response theory models , 1990 .

[6]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice , 1997 .

[7]  Marsha C. Lovett,et al.  Modeling individual differences in working memory performance: a source activation account , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  John R. Anderson,et al.  A Production System Theory of Serial Memory , 1997 .

[9]  Jorma Rissanen,et al.  The Minimum Description Length Principle in Coding and Modeling , 1998, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[10]  E. Lehmann Model Specification: The Views of Fisher and Neyman, and Later Developments , 1990 .

[11]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  When and Why Does Mastery Learning Work: Instructional Experiments with ACT-R "SimStudents" , 2002, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[12]  D. Wegener,et al.  The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  Gerry Leversha,et al.  Statistical inference (2nd edn), by Paul H. Garthwaite, Ian T. Jolliffe and Byron Jones. Pp.328. £40 (hbk). 2002. ISBN 0 19 857226 3 (Oxford University Press). , 2003, The Mathematical Gazette.

[14]  H Pashler,et al.  How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. , 2000, Psychological review.

[15]  K. Wexler A review of John R. Anderson's language, memory, and thought , 1978, Cognition.

[16]  David R. Cox,et al.  Role of Models in Statistical Analysis , 1990 .

[17]  E KierasDavid,et al.  An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction , 1997 .

[18]  Allen Newell,et al.  SOAR: An Architecture for General Intelligence , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[19]  John R. Anderson A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory , 1988 .

[20]  C. Lebiere,et al.  An integrated theory of list memory. , 1998 .

[21]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Toward a Model of Learning Data Representations , 2001 .

[22]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  Modeling icon search in ACT-R/PM , 2002, Cognitive Systems Research.

[23]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[24]  David E. Kieras,et al.  An Overview of the EPIC Architecture for Cognition and Performance With Application to Human-Computer Interaction , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[25]  John R. Anderson,et al.  An ACT-R Model of Memory Applied to Finding the Optimal Schedule of Practice , 2004, ICCM.

[26]  Cutting,et al.  Accuracy, Scope, and Flexibility of Models. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[27]  P. R. Bevington,et al.  Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, 2nd ed. , 1993 .

[28]  G. Box Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. , 1979 .

[29]  C. Lebiere,et al.  The Atomic Components of Thought , 1998 .

[30]  Steve Reeves,et al.  Atomic Components , 2004, ICTAC.

[31]  Carl Heiles,et al.  The Atomic Component , 1987 .

[32]  H. Rijn,et al.  Modeling developmental transitions in ACT-R , 2000 .

[33]  P. R. Bevington,et al.  Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences , 1969 .

[34]  John R. Anderson Language, Memory, and Thought , 1976 .

[35]  L. Wasserman,et al.  Computing Bayes Factors by Combining Simulation and Asymptotic Approximations , 1997 .

[36]  Richard J. Patz,et al.  A Straightforward Approach to Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Item Response Models , 1999 .

[37]  Kevin A. Gluck,et al.  Comparing Three Variants of a Computational Process Model of Basic Aircraft Maneuvering , 2003 .

[38]  W. Wong,et al.  The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation , 1987 .

[39]  C. Schunn,et al.  Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit in Comparison of Models to Data , 2005 .

[40]  Mark A. Pitt,et al.  Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. , 2002 .

[41]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  A Unifying Review of Linear Gaussian Models , 1999, Neural Computation.

[42]  I. J. Myung,et al.  Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. , 2002, Psychological review.