Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:04:51.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distinguishing literal from metaphorical applications of Bayesian approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2011

Timothy T. Rogers  and
Mark S. Seidenberg
Timothy T. Rogers
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53726. ttrogers@wisc.eduhttp://concepts.psych.wisc.eduseidenberg@wisc.eduhttp://lcnl.wisc.edu
Mark S. Seidenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53726. ttrogers@wisc.eduhttp://concepts.psych.wisc.eduseidenberg@wisc.eduhttp://lcnl.wisc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We distinguish between literal and metaphorical applications of Bayesian models. When intended literally, an isomorphism exists between the elements of representation assumed by the rational analysis and the mechanism that implements the computation. Thus, observation of the implementation can externally validate assumptions underlying the rational analysis. In other applications, no such isomorphism exists, so it is not clear how the assumptions that allow a Bayesian model to fit data can be independently validated.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 2011 , pp. 211 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S. & Cohen, J. D. (2001) Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review 108(3):624–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botvinick, M. M. & Plaut, D. C. (2004) Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychological Review 111(2):395–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harm, M. W. & Seidenberg, M. (2004) Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review 111(3):662–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L. & Patterson, K. (2002) Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11):465–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, K. A. & O'Reilly, R. C. (2003) Modeling hippocampal and neocortical contributions to recognition memory: A complementary learning systems approach. Psychological Review 110(4):611–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Reilly, R. C. & Norman, K. A. (2002) Hippocampal and neocortical contributions to memory: Advances in the complementary learning systems framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(12):505–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olshausen, B. A. & Field, D. J. (1996) Emergence of simple-cell receptive-field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature 381:607–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, T. T., Lambon, Ralph M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R. & Patterson, K. (2004) The structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A computational and neuropsychological investigation. Psychological Review 111(1):205–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, T. T. & McClelland, J. L. (2004) Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. & Plaut, D. C. (in press) Idealization and its discontents: The legacy of the past tense debate. Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Simoncelli, E. P. & Olshausen, B. A. (2001) Natural image statistics and neural representation. Annual Review of Neuroscience 24:1193–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, F. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007b) Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review 114(2):245–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed