An Exemplar-Based Random-Walk Model of Categorization and Recognition

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Nosofsky ◽  
Thomas J. Palmeri
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Model ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Random Walk ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Object Identification ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Response Time Models ◽  
Individual Object ◽  
Evidence Accumulation ◽  
Skilled Performance

In this chapter, we provide a review of a process-oriented mathematical model of categorization known as the exemplar-based random-walk (EBRW) model (Nosofsky & Palmeri, 1997a). The EBRW model is a member of the class of exemplar models. According to such models, people represent categories by storing individual exemplars of the categories in memory, and classify objects on the basis of their similarity to the stored exemplars. The EBRW model combines ideas ranging from the fields of choice and similarity, to the development of automaticity, to response-time models of evidence accumulation and decision-making. This integrated model explains relations between categorization and other fundamental cognitive processes, including individual-object identification, the development of expertise in tasks of skilled performance, and old-new recognition memory. Furthermore, it provides an account of how categorization and recognition decision-making unfold through time. We also provide comparisons with some other process models of categorization.

scholarly journals Should I stay or should I go? Evidence accumulation drives decision making in human drivers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arkady Zgonnikov ◽  
David Abbink ◽  
Gustav Markkula
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Cognitive Process ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Naturalistic Decision Making ◽  
Dynamic Constraints ◽  
Evidence Accumulation ◽  
Out Of Sample

Laboratory studies of abstract, highly controlled tasks point towards noisy evidence accumulation as a key mechanism governing decision making. Yet it is unclear whether the cognitive processes implicated in simple, isolated decisions in the lab are as paramount to decisions that are ingrained in more complex behaviors, such as driving. Here we aim to address the gap between modern cognitive models of decision making and studies of naturalistic decision making in drivers, which so far have provided only limited insight into the underlying cognitive processes. We investigate drivers' decision making during unprotected left turns, and model the cognitive process driving these decisions. Our model builds on the classical drift-diffusion model, and emphasizes, first, the drift rate linked to the relevant perceptual quantities dynamically sampled from the environment, and, second, collapsing decision boundaries reflecting the dynamic constraints imposed on the decision maker’s response by the environment. We show that the model explains the observed decision outcomes and response times, as well as substantial individual differences in those. Through cross-validation, we demonstrate that the model not only explains the data, but also generalizes to out-of-sample conditions, effectively providing a way to predict human drivers’ behavior in real time. Our results reveal the cognitive mechanisms of gap acceptance decisions in human drivers, and exemplify how simple cognitive process models can help us to understand human behavior in complex real-world tasks.

scholarly journals An evidence accumulation model of perceptual discrimination with naturalistic stimuli

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hector Palada ◽  
Rachel A Searston ◽  
Annabel Persson ◽  
Timothy Ballard ◽  
Matthew B Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Dynamic Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Accumulation ◽  
Natural Stimuli ◽  
Perceptual Judgments ◽  
Linear Ballistic Accumulator ◽  
Decision Making Model ◽  
Speed Accuracy

Evidence accumulation models have been used to describe the cognitive processes underlying performance in tasks involving two-choice decisions about unidimensional stimuli, such as motion or orientation. Given the multidimensionality of natural stimuli, however, we might expect qualitatively different patterns of evidence accumulation in more applied perceptual tasks. One domain that relies heavily on human decisions about complex natural stimuli is fingerprint discrimination. We know little about the ability of evidence accumulation models to account for the dynamic decision process of a fingerprint examiner resolving if two different prints belong to the same finger or not. Here, we apply a dynamic decision-making model — the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA) — to fingerprint discrimination decisions in order to gain insight into the cognitive processes underlying these complex perceptual judgments. Across three experiments, we show that the LBA provides an accurate description of the fingerprint discrimination decision process with manipulations in visual noise, speed-accuracy emphasis, and training. Our results demonstrate that the LBA is a promising model for furthering our understanding of applied decision-making with naturally varying visual stimuli.

scholarly journals Reward-driven changes in striatal pathway competition shape evidence evaluation in decision-making

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Dunovan ◽  
Catalina Vich ◽  
Matthew Clapp ◽  
Timothy Verstynen ◽  
Jonathan Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Basal Ganglia ◽  
Diffusion Model ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Drift Diffusion Model ◽  
Indirect Pathway ◽  
Drift Diffusion ◽  
Pathway Activity ◽  
Evidence Accumulation

AbstractCortico-basal-ganglia-thalamic (CBGT) networks are critical for adaptive decision-making, yet how changes to circuit-level properties impact cognitive algorithms remains unclear. Here we explore how dopaminergic plasticity at corticostriatal synapses alters competition between striatal pathways, impacting the evidence accumulation process during decision-making. Spike-timing dependent plasticity simulations showed that dopaminergic feedback based on rewards modified the ratio of direct and indirect corticostriatal weights within opposing action channels. Using the learned weight ratios in a full spiking CBGT network model, we simulated neural dynamics and decision outcomes in a reward-driven decision task and fit them with a drift diffusion model. Fits revealed that the rate of evidence accumulation varied with inter-channel differences in direct pathway activity while boundary height varied with overall indirect pathway activity. This multi-level modeling approach demonstrates how complementary learning and decision computations can emerge from corticostriatal plasticity.Author summaryCognitive process models such as reinforcement learning (RL) and the drift diffusion model (DDM) have helped to elucidate the basic algorithms underlying error-corrective learning and the evaluation of accumulating decision evidence leading up to a choice. While these relatively abstract models help to guide experimental and theoretical probes into associated phenomena, they remain uninformative about the actual physical mechanics by which learning and decision algorithms are carried out in a neurobiological substrate during adaptive choice behavior. Here we present an “upwards mapping” approach to bridging neural and cognitive models of value-based decision-making, showing how dopaminergic feedback alters the network-level dynamics of cortico-basal-ganglia-thalamic (CBGT) pathways during learning to bias behavioral choice towards more rewarding actions. By mapping “up” the levels of analysis, this approach yields specific predictions about aspects of neuronal activity that map to the quantities appearing in the cognitive decision-making framework.

Formal RTPA Models for a Set of Meta-Cognitive Processes of the Brain

2011 ◽  
pp. 308-324
Author(s):  
Yingxu Wang
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Model ◽  
Knowledge Representation ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Object Identification ◽  
Time Process ◽  
Metacognitive Processes ◽  
Internal Information ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Object Attribute

The cognitive processes modeled at the metacognitive level of the layered reference mode of the brain (LRMB) encompass those of object identification, abstraction, concept establishment, search, categorization, comparison, memorization, qualification, quantification, and selection. It is recognized that all higher layer cognitive processes of the brain rely on the metacognitive processes. Each of this set of fundamental cognitive processes is formally described by a mathematical model and a process model. Real-time process algebra (RTPA) is adopted as a denotational mathematical means for rigorous modeling and describing the metacognitive processes. All cognitive models and processes are explained on the basis of the object-attribute-relation (OAR) model for internal information and knowledge representation and manipulation.

Distinct brain mechanisms linked to evidence accumulation and crime-type bias in juror decisions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime J. Castrellon ◽  
Shabnam Hakimi ◽  
Jacob M. Parelman ◽  
Lun Yin ◽  
Jonathan R. Law ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Brain Activation ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Evidence Accumulation ◽  
Use Patterns ◽  
Crime Type ◽  
Competing Models ◽  
Jury Decisions

AbstractEfforts to explain jury decisions have focused on competing models emphasizing utility, narrative, and social-affective mechanisms, but these are difficult to distinguish using behavior alone. Here, we use patterns of brain activation derived from large neuroimaging databases to look for signatures of the cognitive processes associated with models of juror decision making. We asked jury-eligible subjects to rate the strength of a series of criminal cases while recording the resulting patterns of brain activation. When subjects considered evidence, utility and narrative processes were both active, but cognitive processes associated with narrative models better explain the patterns of brain activation. In contrast, a biasing effect of crime type on perceived strength of the case was best explained by brain patterns associated with social cognition.

Cognition in the Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eileen Braman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Motivated Reasoning ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
Fact Finding

This chapter critically evaluates how experiments are used to study cognitive processes involved in legal reasoning. Looking at research on legal presumptions, heuristic processing, and various types of bias in judicial decision-making, the analysis considers how experiments with judges, lay participants, and other legally trained populations have contributed to our understanding of the psychological processes involved in fact-finding and legal decision-making. It explores how behavioral economics, dual process models, cultural cognition, and motivated reasoning frameworks have been used to inform experimental research. The chapter concludes with a discussion of what findings add to our normative understanding of issues like accuracy and neutrality in decision-making and a call to better integrate knowledge gained through experimental methods across disciplinary boundaries.

scholarly journals Evidence Accumulation Models: Current Limitations and Future Directions

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan J. Evans ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Response Time ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Choice Response ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Evidence Accumulation ◽  
Choice Response Time ◽  
Response Time Distributions

Evidence accumulation models (EAMs) have been the dominant models of speeded decision-making for several decades. These models propose that evidence accumulates for decision alternatives at some rate, until the evidence for one alternative reaches some threshold that triggers a decision. As a theory, EAMs have provided an accurate account of the choice response time distributions in a range of decision-making tasks, and as a measurement tool, EAMs have provided direct insight into how cognitive processes differ between groups and experimental conditions, resulting in EAMs becoming the standard paradigm of speeded decision-making. However, we argue that there are several limitations to how EAMs are currently tested and applied, which have begun to limit their value as a standard paradigm. Specifically, we believe that a theoretical plateau has been reached for the level of explanation that EAMs can provide about the decision-making process, and that applications of EAMs have started to become restrictive and of limited value. We provide several recommendations for how researchers can help to overcome these limitations. As a theory, we believe that EAMs can provide further value through being constrained by sources of data beyond the standard choice response time distributions, being extended to the entire decision-making process from encoding to responding, and having the random sources of variability replaced by systematic sources of variability. As a measurement tool, we believe that EAMs can provide further value through being a default method of inference for cognitive psychology in place of mean response time and choice, and being applied to a broader range of empirical questions that better capture individual differences in cognitive processes.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document