nips nips2009 nips2009-216 nips2009-216-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Matthew Wilder, Matt Jones, Michael C. Mozer
Abstract: Across a wide range of cognitive tasks, recent experience influences behavior. For example, when individuals repeatedly perform a simple two-alternative forcedchoice task (2AFC), response latencies vary dramatically based on the immediately preceding trial sequence. These sequential effects have been interpreted as adaptation to the statistical structure of an uncertain, changing environment (e.g., Jones and Sieck, 2003; Mozer, Kinoshita, and Shettel, 2007; Yu and Cohen, 2008). The Dynamic Belief Model (DBM) (Yu and Cohen, 2008) explains sequential effects in 2AFC tasks as a rational consequence of a dynamic internal representation that tracks second-order statistics of the trial sequence (repetition rates) and predicts whether the upcoming trial will be a repetition or an alternation of the previous trial. Experimental results suggest that first-order statistics (base rates) also influence sequential effects. We propose a model that learns both first- and second-order sequence properties, each according to the basic principles of the DBM but under a unified inferential framework. This model, the Dynamic Belief Mixture Model (DBM2), obtains precise, parsimonious fits to data. Furthermore, the model predicts dissociations in behavioral (Maloney, Martello, Sahm, and Spillmann, 2005) and electrophysiological studies (Jentzsch and Sommer, 2002), supporting the psychological and neurobiological reality of its two components. 1
M. Jones and W. Sieck. Learning myopia: An adaptive recency effect in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29:626–640, 2003. M. Mozer, S. Kinoshita, and M. Shettel. Sequential dependencies offer insight into cognitive control. In W. Gray, editor, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems, pages 180–193. Oxford University Press, 2007. A. Yu and J. Cohen. Sequential effects: Superstition or rational behavior? NIPS, pages 1873–1880, 2008. L. Maloney, M. Dal Martello, C. Sahm, and L. Spillmann. Past trials influence perception of ambiguous motion quartets through pattern completion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102:3164–3169, 2005. I. Jentzsch and W. Sommer. Functional localization and mechanisms of sequential effects in serial reaction time tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 64(7):1169–1188, 2002. D. Hale. Sequential effects in a two-choice reaction task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19:133–141, 1967. E. Soetens, L. Boer, and J. Hueting. Expectancy or automatic facilitation? separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 11:598–616, 1985. R. Cho, L. Nystrom, E. Brown, A. Jones, T. Braver, P. Holmes, and J. Cohen. Mechanisms underlying dependencies of performance on stimulus history in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4:283–299, 2002. W. Estes. Toward a statistical theory of learning. Psychological Review, 57:94–107, 1950. N. Anderson. Effect of first-order conditional probability in a two-choice learning situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(2):73–83, 1960. D. Laming. Subjective probability in choice-reaction experiments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6:81–120, 1969. J. Raymond, K. Shapiro, and K. Arnell. Temporary suppression of visual processing in an rsvp task: an attentional blink? Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 18:849–860, 1992. M. Posner and Y. Cohen. Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma and D. G. Bouwhuis, editors, Attention and Performance X: Control of language processes, pages 531–556. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1984. N. Kanwisher. Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27: 117–143, 1987. J. Jahnke. The ranschburg effect. Psychological Review, 76:592–605, 1969. 9