PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Joshua B Tenenbaum

Publications and source records attributed to Joshua B Tenenbaum.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Probabilistic models of cognition: conceptual foundations.

Remarkable progress in the mathematics and computer science of probability has led to a revolution in the scope of probabilistic models. In particular, 'sophisticated' probabilistic methods apply to structured relational systems such as graphs and grammars, of immediate relevance to the cognitive sciences. This Special Issue outlines progress in this rapidly developing field, which provides a potentially unifying perspective across a wide range of domains and levels of explanation. Here, we introduce the historical and conceptual foundations of the approach, explore how the approach relates to studies of explicit probabilistic reasoning, and give a brief overview of the field as it stands today.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2006

Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning.

Inductive inference allows humans to make powerful generalizations from sparse data when learning about word meanings, unobserved properties, causal relationships, and many other aspects of the world. Traditional accounts of induction emphasize either the power of statistical learning, or the importance of strong constraints from structured domain knowledge, intuitive theories or schemas. We argue that both components are necessary to explain the nature, use and acquisition of human knowledge, and we introduce a theory-based Bayesian framework for modeling inductive learning and reasoning as statistical inferences over structured knowledge representations.

Association Learning↗
PubMed2006

From mere coincidences to meaningful discoveries.

People's reactions to coincidences are often cited as an illustration of the irrationality of human reasoning about chance. We argue that coincidences may be better understood in terms of rational statistical inference, based on their functional role in processes of causal discovery and theory revision. We present a formal definition of coincidences in the context of a Bayesian framework for causal induction: a coincidence is an event that provides support for an alternative to a currently favored causal theory, but not necessarily enough support to accept that alternative in light of its low prior probability. We test the qualitative and quantitative predictions of this account through a series of experiments that examine the transition from coincidence to evidence, the correspondence between the strength of coincidences and the statistical support for causal structure, and the relationship between causes and coincidences. Our results indicate that people can accurately assess the strength of coincidences, suggesting that irrational conclusions drawn from coincidences are the consequence of overestimation of the plausibility of novel causal forces. We discuss the implications of our account for understanding the role of coincidences in theory change.

Bayes Theorem↗
PubMed2006

Optimal predictions in everyday cognition.

Human perception and memory are often explained as optimal statistical inferences that are informed by accurate prior probabilities. In contrast, cognitive judgments are usually viewed as following error-prone heuristics that are insensitive to priors. We examined the optimality of human cognition in a more realistic context than typical laboratory studies, asking people to make predictions about the duration or extent of everyday phenomena such as human life spans and the box-office take of movies. Our results suggest that everyday cognitive judgments follow the same optimal statistical principles as perception and memory, and reveal a close correspondence between people's implicit probabilistic models and the statistics of the world.

Cognition↗
PubMed2005

Structure and strength in causal induction.

We present a framework for the rational analysis of elemental causal induction-learning about the existence of a relationship between a single cause and effect-based upon causal graphical models. This framework makes precise the distinction between causal structure and causal strength: the difference between asking whether a causal relationship exists and asking how strong that causal relationship might be. We show that two leading rational models of elemental causal induction, DeltaP and causal power, both estimate causal strength, and we introduce a new rational model, causal support, that assesses causal structure. Causal support predicts several key phenomena of causal induction that cannot be accounted for by other rational models, which we explore through a series of experiments. These phenomena include the complex interaction between DeltaP and the base-rate probability of the effect in the absence of the cause, sample size effects, inferences from incomplete contingency tables, and causal learning from rates. Causal support also provides a better account of a number of existing datasets than either DeltaP or causal power.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

V1 neurons signal acquisition of an internal representation of stimulus location.

A fundamental aspect of visuomotor behavior is deciding where to look or move next. Under certain conditions, the brain constructs an internal representation of stimulus location on the basis of previous knowledge and uses it to move the eyes or to make other movements. Neuronal responses in primary visual cortex were modulated when such an internal representation was acquired: Responses to a stimulus were affected progressively by sequential presentation of the stimulus at one location but not when the location was varied randomly. Responses of individual neurons were spatially tuned for gaze direction and tracked the Bayesian probability of stimulus appearance. We propose that the representation arises in a distributed cortical network and is associated with systematic changes in response selectivity and dynamics at the earliest stages of cortical visual processing.

Analysis of Variance↗