Computational brain & behavior最新文献

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.

Many models of decision making assume accumulation of evidence to threshold as a core mechanism to predict response probabilities and response times. A spiking neural network model (Wang, 2002) instantiates these mechanisms at the level of biophysically-plausible pools of neurons with excitatory and inhibitory connections, and has numerous model parameters tuned by physiological measures. The diffusion model (Ratcliff, 1978) is a cognitive model that can be fitted to a range of behaviors and conditions. We investigated how parameters of the cognitive-level diffusion model relate to the parameters of a neural-level spiking model. In each simulated "experiment", we generated "data" from the spiking neural network by factorially combining a manipulation of choice difficulty (via the input to the spiking model) and a manipulation of one of the core parameters of the spiking model. We then fitted the diffusion model to these simulated data to observe how manipulation of each core spiking model parameter mapped on to fitted drift rate, response threshold, and non-decision time. Manipulations of parameters in the spiking model related to input sensitivity, threshold, and stimulus processing time mapped on to their conceptual analogues in the diffusion model, namely drift rate, threshold, and non-decision time. Manipulations of parameters in the spiking model with no direct analogue to the diffusion model, non-stimulus-specific background input, strength of recurrent excitation, and receptor conductances, mapped on to threshold in the diffusion model. We discuss implications of these results for interpretations of fits of the diffusion model to behavioral data.

The $n$-back task is a widely used behavioral task for measuring working memory and the ability to inhibit interfering information. We develop a novel model of the commonly used 2-back task using the cognitive psychometric framework provided by Multinomial Processing Trees. Our model involves three parameters: a memory parameter, corresponding to how well an individual encodes and updates sequence information about presented stimuli; a decision parameter corresponding to how well participants execute choices based on information stored in memory; and a base-rate parameter corresponding to bias for responding "yes" or "no". We test the parameter recovery properties of the model using existing 2-back experimental designs, and demonstrate the application of the model to two previous data sets: one from social psychology involving faces corresponding to different races (Stelter and Degner, British Journal of Psychology 109:777-798, 2018), and one from cognitive neuroscience involving more than 1000 participants from the Human Connectome Project (Van Essen et al., Neuroimage 80:62-79, 2013). We demonstrate that the model can be used to infer interpretable individual-level parameters. We develop a hierarchical extension of the model to test differences between stimulus conditions, comparing faces of different races, and comparing face to non-face stimuli. We also develop a multivariate regression extension to examine the relationship between the model parameters and individual performance on standardized cognitive measures including the List Sorting and Flanker tasks. We conclude by discussing how our model can be used to dissociate underlying cognitive processes such as encoding failures, inhibition failures, and binding failures.