Small Worlds and Big Data: Examining the Simplification Assumption in Cognitive Modeling

The simplification assumption of cognitive modeling proposes that to understand a given cognitive system, one should focus on the key aspects of the system and allow other sources of complexity to be treated as noise. The assumption grants much power to a modeller, permits a clear and concise exposition of a model’s operation, and allows the modeller to finesse the noisiness inherent in cognitive processes (e.g., McClelland, 2009; Shiffrin, 2010). The smallworld (or “toy model” approach) allows a model to operate in a simple and highly controlled artificial environment. By contrast, big-data approaches to cognition (e.g. Landauer & Dumais, 1997; Jones & Mewhort, 2007) propose that the structure of a noisy environment dictates the operation of a cognitive system. The idea is that complexity is power; hence, by ignoring complexity in the environment, important information about the nature of cognition is lost. Using models of semantic memory as a guide, we examine the plausibility, and the necessity, of the simplification assumption in light of big-data approaches to cognitive modeling.

[1]  David E. Rumelhart,et al.  Brain style computation: learning and generalization , 1990 .

[2]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[3]  Michael D. Lee,et al.  A Survey of Model Evaluation Approaches With a Tutorial on Hierarchical Bayesian Methods , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  Randall K. Jamieson,et al.  Applying an Exemplar Model to the Artificial-Grammar Task: Inferring Grammaticality from Similarity , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  D J K Mewhort,et al.  Grammaticality is inferred from global similarity: A reply to Kinder (2010) , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  The latent semantic analysis theory of knowledge , 1997 .

[7]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text , 2013, RecSys.

[8]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach , 2004 .

[9]  L. Wittgenstein Philosophical investigations = Philosophische Untersuchungen , 1958 .

[10]  W. Kintsch,et al.  High-Dimensional Semantic Space Accounts of Priming. , 2006 .

[11]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Optimal foraging in semantic memory. , 2012, Psychological review.

[12]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Using Cognitive Models to Investigate the Temporal Dynamics of Semantic Memory Impairments in the Development of Alzheimer’s Disease , 2013 .

[13]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Learning and connectionist representations , 1993 .

[14]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  Perspectives on Modeling in Cognitive Science , 2010, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[15]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  Retrieval time from semantic memory , 1969 .

[16]  Michael N Jones,et al.  Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. , 2007, Psychological review.

[17]  Gabriel Recchia,et al.  More data trumps smarter algorithms: Comparing pointwise mutual information with latent semantic analysis , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[18]  James L. McClelland The Place of Modeling in Cognitive Science , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[19]  Magnus Sahlgren,et al.  Encoding Sequential Information in Vector Space Models of Semantics: Comparing Holographic Reduced Representation and Random Permutation , 2010 .

[20]  Mark Steyvers,et al.  Topics in semantic representation. , 2007, Psychological review.

[21]  P. Kanerva,et al.  Permutations as a means to encode order in word space , 2008 .

[22]  Brendan T. Johns,et al.  Generating structure from experience: A retrieval-based model of language processing. , 2015, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[23]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Modeling children's early grammatical knowledge , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.