Local Sampling with Momentum Accounts for Human Random Sequence Generation

Many models of cognition assume that people can generate independent samples, yet people fail to do so in random generation tasks. One prominent explanation for this behavior is that people use learned schemas. Instead, we propose that deviations from randomness arise from people sampling locally rather than independently. To test these explanations, we teach people one- and two-dimensional arrangements of syllables and ask them to generate random sequences from them. Al-though our results reproduce characteristic features of human random generation, such as a preference for adjacent items and an avoidance of repetitions, we also find an effect of dimen- sionality on the patterns people produce. Furthermore, model comparisons revealed that local sampling accounted better for participants’ sequences than a schema account. Finally, evaluating the importance of each models’ constituents, we show that the local sampling model proposed new states based on its current trajectory, rather than an inhibition-of-return-like prin- ciple.

[1]  Adam N. Sanborn,et al.  Probabilistic Biases Meet the Bayesian Brain , 2020 .

[2]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources , 2018, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Nick Chater,et al.  Mental Sampling in Multimodal Representations , 2017, NeurIPS.

[4]  S. Gershman,et al.  Where do hypotheses come from? , 2017, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  Adam N. Sanborn,et al.  Bayesian Brains without Probabilities , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Formalizing Neurath’s Ship: Approximate Algorithms for Online Causal Learning , 2016, Psychological review.

[7]  R. Cooper Executive functions and the generation of “random” sequential responses: A computational account , 2016 .

[8]  J. Gabry,et al.  Bayesian Applied Regression Modeling via Stan , 2016 .

[9]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  One and Done? Optimal Decisions From Very Few Samples , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  J. Cavanaugh,et al.  The Bayesian information criterion: background, derivation, and applications , 2012 .

[11]  Christophe Andrieu,et al.  A tutorial on adaptive MCMC , 2008, Stat. Comput..

[12]  Nir Vulkan An Economist's Perspective on Probability Matching , 2000 .

[13]  John N. Towse,et al.  Analyzing human random generation behavior: A review of methods used and a computer program for describing performance , 1998 .

[14]  A Baddeley,et al.  Random Generation and the Executive Control of Working Memory , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[15]  J. Towse On random generation and the central executive of working memory. , 1998, British journal of psychology.

[16]  A. Horowitz A generalized guided Monte Carlo algorithm , 1991 .

[17]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[18]  A D Baddeley,et al.  Short-term Memory for Word Sequences as a Function of Acoustic, Semantic and Formal Similarity , 1966, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  Christopher G. Lucas,et al.  Epistemic drive and memory manipulations in explore-exploit problems , 2019, CogSci.

[20]  Burr Settles,et al.  Self-Directed Learning Favors Local, Rather Than Global, Uncertainty , 2016, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Multistability and Perceptual Inference , 2012, Neural Computation.

[22]  R. Nosofsky American Psychological Association, Inc. Choice, Similarity, and the Context Theory of Classification , 2022 .

[23]  W. A. Wagenaar Generation of random sequences by human subjects: A critical survey of literature. , 1972 .