Inferring an Observer’s Prediction Strategy in Sequence Learning Experiments

Cognitive systems exhibit astounding prediction capabilities that allow them to reap rewards from regularities in their environment. How do organisms predict environmental input and how well do they do it? As a prerequisite to answering that question, we first address the limits on prediction strategy inference, given a series of inputs and predictions from an observer. We study the special case of Bayesian observers, allowing for a probability that the observer randomly ignores data when building her model. We demonstrate that an observer’s prediction model can be correctly inferred for binary stimuli generated from a finite-order Markov model. However, we can not necessarily infer the model’s parameter values unless we have access to several “clones” of the observer. As stimuli become increasingly complicated, correct inference requires exponentially more data points, computational power, and computational time. These factors place a practical limit on how well we are able to infer an observer’s prediction strategy in an experimental or observational setting.

[1]  Richard N Aslin,et al.  Bayesian learning of visual chunks by human observers , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Christopher C. Strelioff,et al.  Inferring Markov chains: Bayesian estimation, model comparison, entropy rate, and out-of-class modeling. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports , 2018, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[4]  Barton L. Anderson,et al.  Non-Bayesian Contour Synthesis , 2011, Current Biology.

[5]  Samuel J. Gershman,et al.  Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines , 2015, Science.

[6]  A. Clark Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[7]  Edward H. Adelson,et al.  Motion illusions as optimal percepts , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[8]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  J. Crutchfield,et al.  Regularities unseen, randomness observed: levels of entropy convergence. , 2001, Chaos.

[10]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  The Helmholtz Machine , 1995, Neural Computation.

[11]  H. Lau,et al.  Low attention impairs optimal incorporation of prior knowledge in perceptual decisions , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[12]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Suboptimal tradeoffs in information seeking , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Action and behavior: a free-energy formulation , 2010, Biological Cybernetics.

[14]  Charles Kemp,et al.  Bayesian models of cognition , 2008 .

[15]  W. J. McGill,et al.  Applications of Information Theory to Psychology: A Summary of Basic Concepts, Methods, and Results, Fred Attneave. Henry Holt (1959), vii + 120 pp., $3.75 , 1960 .

[16]  N. Chater,et al.  Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Wendy L. Braje,et al.  Human efficiency for recognizing 3-D objects in luminance noise , 1995, Vision Research.

[18]  F. Attneave Applications of information theory to psychology: A summary of basic concepts, methods, and results. , 1961 .

[19]  Rachel N. Denison,et al.  Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making , 2016, bioRxiv.

[20]  Rachel N. Denison,et al.  Suboptimality in perception , 2016 .

[21]  Miguel P. Eckstein,et al.  Learning motion: Human vs. optimal Bayesian learner , 2010, Vision Research.

[22]  Adam J. L. Harris,et al.  Conservatism in Belief Revision and Participant Skepticism , 2010 .

[23]  A. Clark Embodied Prediction , 2015 .

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

[25]  H. Lau,et al.  A signal detection theoretic approach for estimating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings , 2012, Consciousness and Cognition.

[26]  Karl J. Friston The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[27]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  A Bayesian Framework for Cross-Situational Word-Learning , 2007, NIPS.

[28]  Paul R. Schrater,et al.  How Haptic Size Sensations Improve Distance Perception , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[29]  Jessica B. Hamrick,et al.  Inferring mass in complex scenes by mental simulation , 2016, Cognition.

[30]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Bayes and Blickets: Effects of Knowledge on Causal Induction in Children and Adults , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[31]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Contrast and stimulus information effects in rapid learning of a visual task. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[32]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.10 No.7 July 2006 Special Issue: Probabilistic models of cognition Bayesian decision theory in sensorimotor control , 2022 .

[33]  J. Bowers,et al.  Bayesian just-so stories in psychology and neuroscience. , 2012, Psychological bulletin.

[34]  A. Yuille,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.10 No.7 July 2006 Special Issue: Probabilistic models of cognition Vision as Bayesian inference: analysis by synthesis? , 2022 .

[35]  N. Chater,et al.  The probabilistic approach to human reasoning , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  D. Knill,et al.  The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation , 2004, Trends in Neurosciences.

[37]  M. Raijmakers,et al.  Characterizing sequence knowledge using online measures and hidden Markov models , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[38]  J. Hohwy The Predictive Mind , 2013 .

[39]  Charles Kemp,et al.  How to Grow a Mind: Statistics, Structure, and Abstraction , 2011, Science.