↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Analysis of Behavioral Models for Adaptive Learning in Changing Environments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
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
Comparative Analysis of Behavioral Models for Adaptive Learning in Changing Environments
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2016.00033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitrije Marković, Stefan J. Kiebel

Abstract

Probabilistic models of decision making under various forms of uncertainty have been applied in recent years to numerous behavioral and model-based fMRI studies. These studies were highly successful in enabling a better understanding of behavior and delineating the functional properties of brain areas involved in decision making under uncertainty. However, as different studies considered different models of decision making under uncertainty, it is unclear which of these computational models provides the best account of the observed behavioral and neuroimaging data. This is an important issue, as not performing model comparison may tempt researchers to over-interpret results based on a single model. Here we describe how in practice one can compare different behavioral models and test the accuracy of model comparison and parameter estimation of Bayesian and maximum-likelihood based methods. We focus our analysis on two well-established hierarchical probabilistic models that aim at capturing the evolution of beliefs in changing environments: Hierarchical Gaussian Filters and Change Point Models. To our knowledge, these two, well-established models have never been compared on the same data. We demonstrate, using simulated behavioral experiments, that one can accurately disambiguate between these two models, and accurately infer free model parameters and hidden belief trajectories (e.g., posterior expectations, posterior uncertainties, and prediction errors) even when using noisy and highly correlated behavioral measurements. Importantly, we found several advantages of Bayesian inference and Bayesian model comparison compared to often-used Maximum-Likelihood schemes combined with the Bayesian Information Criterion. These results stress the relevance of Bayesian data analysis for model-based neuroimaging studies that investigate human decision making under uncertainty.

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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 5%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 61 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 25%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 25%
Neuroscience 13 20%
Computer Science 8 12%
Physics and Astronomy 6 9%
Mathematics 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#19,888,695
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#1,005
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,177
of 305,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#25
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 305,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.