Computational brain & behavior最新文献

Visual working memory is highly limited, and its capacity is tied to many indices of cognitive function. For this reason, there is much interest in understanding its architecture and the sources of its limited capacity. As part of this research effort, researchers often attempt to decompose visual working memory errors into different kinds of errors, with different origins. One of the most common kinds of memory error is referred to as a "swap," where people report a value that closely resembles an item that was not probed (e.g., an incorrect, non-target item). This is typically assumed to reflect confusions, like location binding errors, which result in the wrong item being reported. Capturing swap rates reliably and validly is of great importance because it permits researchers to accurately decompose different sources of memory errors and elucidate the processes that give rise to them. Here, we ask whether different visual working memory models yield robust and consistent estimates of swap rates. This is a major gap in the literature because in both empirical and modeling work, researchers measure swaps without motivating their choice of swap model. Therefore, we use extensive parameter recovery simulations with three mainstream swap models to demonstrate how the choice of measurement model can result in very large differences in estimated swap rates. We find that these choices can have major implications for how swap rates are estimated to change across conditions. In particular, each of the three models we consider can lead to differential quantitative and qualitative interpretations of the data. Our work serves as a cautionary note to researchers as well as a guide for model-based measurement of visual working memory processes.

Human performance shows substantial endogenous variability over time, and this variability is a robust marker of individual differences. Of growing interest to psychologists is the realisation that variability is not fully random, but often exhibits temporal dependencies. However, their measurement and interpretation come with several controversies. Furthermore, their potential benefit for studying individual differences in healthy and clinical populations remains unclear. Here, we gather new and archival datasets featuring 11 sensorimotor and cognitive tasks across 526 participants, to examine individual differences in temporal structures. We first investigate intra-individual repeatability of the most common measures of temporal structures - to test their potential for capturing stable individual differences. Secondly, we examine inter-individual differences in these measures using: (1) task performance assessed from the same data, (2) meta-cognitive ratings of on-taskness from thought probes occasionally presented throughout the task, and (3) self-assessed attention-deficit related traits. Across all datasets, autocorrelation at lag 1 and Power Spectra Density slope showed high intra-individual repeatability across sessions and correlated with task performance. The Detrended Fluctuation Analysis slope showed the same pattern, but less reliably. The long-term component (d) of the ARFIMA(1,d,1) model showed poor repeatability and no correlation to performance. Overall, these measures failed to show external validity when correlated with either mean subjective attentional state or self-assessed traits between participants. Thus, some measures of serial dependencies may be stable individual traits, but their usefulness in capturing individual differences in other constructs typically associated with variability in performance seems limited. We conclude with comprehensive recommendations for researchers.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42113-022-00162-1.

In van Doorn et al. (2021), we outlined a series of open questions concerning Bayes factors for mixed effects model comparison, with an emphasis on the impact of aggregation, the effect of measurement error, the choice of prior distributions, and the detection of interactions. Seven expert commentaries (partially) addressed these initial questions. Surprisingly perhaps, the experts disagreed (often strongly) on what is best practice-a testament to the intricacy of conducting a mixed effect model comparison. Here, we provide our perspective on these comments and highlight topics that warrant further discussion. In general, we agree with many of the commentaries that in order to take full advantage of Bayesian mixed model comparison, it is important to be aware of the specific assumptions that underlie the to-be-compared models.