Rating Distributions and Bayesian Inference: Enhancing Cognitive Models of Spatial Language Use

We present two methods that improve the assessment of cognitive models. The first method is applicable to models computing average acceptability ratings. For these models, we propose an extension that simulates a full rating distribution (instead of average ratings) and allows generating individual ratings. Our second method enables Bayesian inference for models generating individual data. To this end, we propose to use the cross-match test (Rosenbaum, 2005) as a likelihood function. We exemplarily present both methods using cognitive models from the domain of spatial language use. For spatial language use, determining linguistic acceptability judgments of a spatial preposition for a depicted spatial relation is assumed to be a crucial process (Logan and Sadler, 1996). Existing models of this process compute an average acceptability rating. We extend the models and – based on existing data – show that the extended models allow extracting more information from the empirical data and yield more readily interpretable information about model successes and failures. Applying Bayesian inference, we find that model performance relies less on mechanisms of capturing geometrical aspects than on mapping the captured geometry to a rating interval.

[1]  Conrad Sanderson,et al.  Armadillo: a template-based C++ library for linear algebra , 2016, J. Open Source Softw..

[2]  Xavier Fernández-i-Marín,et al.  ggmcmc: Analysis of MCMC Samples and Bayesian Inference , 2016 .

[3]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  P. Rosenbaum An exact distribution‐free test comparing two multivariate distributions based on adjacency , 2005 .

[5]  Angelo Cangelosi,et al.  Spatial language and converseness , 2016, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[7]  Holger Schultheis,et al.  Comparing Model Comparison Methods , 2013, CogSci.

[8]  Remko Scha,et al.  How should we evaluate models of segmentation in artificial language learning , 2015 .

[9]  P. H. Garthwaite,et al.  Adaptive optimal scaling of Metropolis–Hastings algorithms using the Robbins–Monro process , 2010, 1006.3690.

[10]  Pia Knoeferle,et al.  Modeling the Directionality of Attention During Spatial Language Comprehension , 2016, ICAART.

[11]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations , 1996 .

[12]  Holger Schultheis,et al.  Attentional Distribution and Spatial Language , 2014, Spatial Cognition.

[13]  Thomas Hörberg,et al.  Influences of Form and Function on the Acceptability of Projective Prepositions in Swedish , 2008, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[14]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Grounding spatial language in perception: an empirical and computational investigation. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  Alexander Clark,et al.  Grammaticality, Acceptability, and Probability: A Probabilistic View of Linguistic Knowledge , 2017, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Brandon M. Turner,et al.  Journal of Mathematical Psychology a Tutorial on Approximate Bayesian Computation , 2022 .

[17]  Frank Keller,et al.  A Probabilistic Model of Semantic Plausibility in Sentence Processing , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  Torrin M. Liddell,et al.  Analyzing Ordinal Data with Metric Models: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? , 2017, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

[19]  T. Griffiths,et al.  Modeling individual differences using Dirichlet processes , 2006 .

[20]  John K. Kruschke,et al.  Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan , 2014 .

[21]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  Spatial Prepositions and Vague Quantifiers: Implementing the Functional Geometric Framework , 2004, Spatial Cognition.