Search for: All records

Vivid episodic memories in humans have been described as the replay of the flow of past events in sequential order. Recently, Panoz-Brown et al. (2018) developed an olfactory memory task in which rats were presented with a list of trial-unique odors in an encoding context; next, in a distinctive memory assessment context, the rats were rewarded for choosing the second to last item from the list while avoiding other items from the list. In a different memory assessment context, the fourth to last item was rewarded. According to the episodic memory replay hypothesis, the rat remembers the list items and searches these items to find the item at the targeted locations in the list. However, events presented sequentially differ in memory trace strength, allowing a rat to use the relative familiarity of the memory traces, instead of episodic memory replay, to solve the task. Here, we directly manipulated memory trace strength by manipulating the odor intensity of target odors in both the list presentation and memory assessment. The rats relied on episodic memory replay to solve the memory assessment in conditions in which reliance on memory trace strength is ruled out. We conclude that rats are able to replay episodic memories. 

Abstract This commentary argues against the indictment of current experimental practices such as piecemeal testing, and the proposed integrated experiment design (IED) approach, which we see as yet another attempt at automating scientific thinking. We identify a number of undesirable features of IED that lead us to believe that its broad application will hinder scientific progress. 

Abstract Statistical modeling is generally meant to describe patterns in data in service of the broader scientific goal of developing theories to explain those patterns. Statistical models support meaningful inferences when models are built so as to align parameters of the model with potential causal mechanisms and how they manifest in data. When statistical models are instead based on assumptions chosen by default, attempts to draw inferences can be uninformative or even paradoxical—in essence, the tail is trying to wag the dog. These issues are illustrated by van Doorn et al. (this issue) in the context of using Bayes Factors to identify effects and interactions in linear mixed models. We show that the problems identified in their applications (along with other problems identified here) can be circumvented by using priors over inherently meaningful units instead of default priors on standardized scales. This case study illustrates how researchers must directly engage with a number of substantive issues in order to support meaningful inferences, of which we highlight two: The first is the problem of coordination , which requires a researcher to specify how the theoretical constructs postulated by a model are functionally related to observable variables. The second is the problem of generalization , which requires a researcher to consider how a model may represent theoretical constructs shared across similar but non-identical situations, along with the fact that model comparison metrics like Bayes Factors do not directly address this form of generalization. For statistical modeling to serve the goals of science, models cannot be based on default assumptions, but should instead be based on an understanding of their coordination function and on how they represent causal mechanisms that may be expected to generalize to other related scenarios. 

Abstract van Doorn et al. (2021) outlined various questions that arise when conducting Bayesian model comparison for mixed effects models. Seven response articles offered their own perspective on the preferred setup for mixed model comparison, on the most appropriate specification of prior distributions, and on the desirability of default recommendations. This article presents a round-table discussion that aims to clarify outstanding issues, explore common ground, and outline practical considerations for any researcher wishing to conduct a Bayesian mixed effects model comparison.