↓ Skip to main content

Testing Adaptive Toolbox Models: A Bayesian Hierarchical Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Review, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Testing Adaptive Toolbox Models: A Bayesian Hierarchical Approach
Published in
Psychological Review, January 2013
DOI 10.1037/a0030777
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Scheibehenne, Jörg Rieskamp, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Abstract

Many theories of human cognition postulate that people are equipped with a repertoire of strategies to solve the tasks they face. This theoretical framework of a cognitive toolbox provides a plausible account of intra- and interindividual differences in human behavior. Unfortunately, it is often unclear how to rigorously test the toolbox framework. How can a toolbox model be quantitatively specified? How can the number of toolbox strategies be limited to prevent uncontrolled strategy sprawl? How can a toolbox model be formally tested against alternative theories? The authors show how these challenges can be met by using Bayesian inference techniques. By means of parameter recovery simulations and the analysis of empirical data across a variety of domains (i.e., judgment and decision making, children's cognitive development, function learning, and perceptual categorization), the authors illustrate how Bayesian inference techniques allow toolbox models to be quantitatively specified, strategy sprawl to be contained, and toolbox models to be rigorously tested against competing theories. The authors demonstrate that their approach applies at the individual level but can also be generalized to the group level with hierarchical Bayesian procedures. The suggested Bayesian inference techniques represent a theoretical and methodological advancement for toolbox theories of cognition and behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Germany 5 2%
Switzerland 4 2%
Chile 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 198 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 22%
Researcher 39 17%
Student > Master 30 13%
Professor 21 9%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Other 49 22%
Unknown 20 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 127 56%
Computer Science 12 5%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 3%
Decision Sciences 6 3%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 29 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Review
#1,356
of 1,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,801
of 289,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Review
#19
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.