Search for: All records

Abstract We present motivation and practical steps necessary to find parameter estimates of joint models of behavior and neural electrophysiological data. This tutorial is written for researchers wishing to build joint models of human behavior and scalp and intracranial electroencephalographic (EEG) or magnetoencephalographic (MEG) data, and more specifically those researchers who seek to understand human cognition. Although these techniques could easily be applied to animal models, the focus of this tutorial is on human participants. Joint modeling of M/EEG and behavior requires some knowledge of existing computational and cognitive theories, M/EEG artifact correction, M/EEG analysis techniques, cognitive modeling, and programming for statistical modeling implementation. This paper seeks to give an introduction to these techniques as they apply to estimating parameters from neurocognitive models of M/EEG and human behavior, and to evaluate model results and compare models. Due to our research and knowledge on the subject matter, our examples in this paper will focus on testing specific hypotheses in human decision-making theory. However, most of the motivation and discussion of this paper applies across many modeling procedures and applications. We provide Python (and linked R) code examples in the tutorial and appendix. Readers are encouraged to try the exercises at the end of the document. 

The mnemonic discrimination task (MDT) is a widely used cognitive assessment tool. Performance in this task is believed to indicate an age-related deficit in episodic memory stemming from a decreased ability to pattern-separate among similar experiences. However, cognitive processes other than memory ability might impact task performance. In this study, we investigated whether nonmnemonic decision-making processes contribute to the age-related deficit in the MDT. We applied a hierarchical Bayesian version of the Ratcliff diffusion model to the MDT performance of 26 younger and 31 cognitively normal older adults. It allowed us to decompose decision behavior in the MDT into different underlying cognitive processes, represented by specific model parameters. Model parameters were compared between groups, and differences were evaluated using the Bayes factor. Our results suggest that the age-related decline in MDT performance indicates a predominantly mnemonic deficit rather than differences in nonmnemonic decision-making processes. In addition, this mnemonic deficit might also involve a slowing in processes related to encoding and retrieval strategies, which are relevant for successful memory as well. These findings help to better understand what cognitive processes contribute to the age-related decline in MDT performance and may help to improve the diagnostic value of this popular task. 

Current attempts at methodological reform in sciences come in response to an overall lack of rigor in methodological and scientific practices in experimental sciences. However, most methodological reform attempts suffer from similar mistakes and over-generalizations to the ones they aim to address. We argue that this can be attributed in part to lack of formalism and first principles. Considering the costs of allowing false claims to become canonized, we argue for formal statistical rigor and scientific nuance in methodological reform. To attain this rigor and nuance, we propose a five-step formal approach for solving methodological problems. To illustrate the use and benefits of such formalism, we present a formal statistical analysis of three popular claims in the metascientific literature: (i) that reproducibility is the cornerstone of science; (ii) that data must not be used twice in any analysis; and (iii) that exploratory projects imply poor statistical practice. We show how our formal approach can inform and shape debates about such methodological claims. 

There are many ways to measure how people manage risk when they make decisions. A standard approach is to measure risk propensity using self-report questionnaires. An alternative approach is to use decision-making tasks that involve risk and uncertainty, and apply cognitive models of task behavior to infer parameters that measure people's risk propensity. We report the results of a within-participants experiment that used three questionnaires and four decision-making tasks. The questionnaires are the Risk Propensity Scale, the Risk Taking Index, and the Domain Specific Risk Taking Scale. The decision-making tasks are the Balloon Analogue Risk Task, the preferential choice gambling task, the optimal stopping problem, and the bandit problem. We analyze the relationships between the risk measures and cognitive parameters using Bayesian inferences about the patterns of correlation, and using a novel cognitive latent variable modeling approach. The results show that people's risk propensity is generally consistent within different conditions for each of the decision-making tasks. There is, however, little evidence that the way people manage risk generalizes across the tasks, or that it corresponds to the questionnaire measures.