A Comparison of Reinforcement Learning Models for the Iowa Gambling Task Using Parameter Space Partitioning

The Iowa gambling task (IGT) is one of the most popular tasks used to study decisionmaking deficits in clinical populations. In order to decompose performance on the IGT in its constituent psychological processes, several cognitive models have been proposed (e.g., the Expectancy Valence (EV) and Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) models). Here we present a comparison of three models—the EV and PVL models, and a combination of these models (EV-PU)—based on the method of parameter space partitioning. This method allows us to assess the choice patterns predicted by the models across their entire parameter space. Our results show that the EV model is unable to account for a frequency-of-losses effect, whereas the PVL and EV-PU models are unable to account for a pronounced preference for the bad decks with many switches. All three models underrepresent pronounced choice patterns that are frequently seen in experiments. Overall, our results suggest that the search of an appropriate IGT model has not yet come to an end

Performance and awareness in the Iowa Gambling Task

Newell & Shanks (N&S) conclude that healthy participants learn to differentiate between the good and bad decks of the Iowa Gambling Task, and that healthy participants even have conscious knowledge about the task's payoff structure. Improved methods of analysis and new behavioral findings suggest that this conclusion is premature

Using Bayesian Regression to Test Hypotheses About Relationships Between Parameters and Covariates in Cognitive Models

An important tool in the advancement of cognitive science are quantitative models that represent different cognitive variables in terms of model parameters. To evaluate such models, their parameters are typically tested for relationships with behavioral and physiological variables that are thought to reflect specific cognitive processes. However, many models do not come equipped with the statistical framework needed to relate model parameters to covariates. Instead, researchers often revert to classifying participants into groups depending on their values on the covariates, and subsequently comparing the estimated model parameters between these groups. Here we develop a comprehensive solution to the covariate problem in the form of a Bayesian regression framework. Our framework can be easily added to existing cognitive models and allows researchers to quantify the evidential support for relationships between covariates and model parameters using Bayes factors. Moreover, we present a simulation study that demonstrates the superiority of the Bayesian regression framework to the conventional classification-based approach

Using Bayesian Regression to Test Hypotheses About Relationships Between Parameters and Covariates in Cognitive Models

An important tool in the advancement of cognitive science are quantitative models that represent different cognitive variables in terms of model parameters. To evaluate such models, their parameters are typically tested for relationships with behavioral and physiological variables that are thought to reflect specific cognitive processes. However, many models do not come equipped with the statistical framework needed to relate model parameters to covariates. Instead, researchers often revert to classifying participants into groups depending on their values on the covariates, and subsequently comparing the estimated model parameters between these groups. Here we develop a comprehensive solution to the covariate problem in the form of a Bayesian regression framework. Our framework can be easily added to existing cognitive models and allows researchers to quantify the evidential support for relationships between covariates and model parameters using Bayes factors. Moreover, we present a simulation study that demonstrates the superiority of the Bayesian regression framework to the conventional classification-based approach

Bayesian techniques for analyzing group differences in the Iowa Gambling Task: A case study of intuitive and deliberate decision-makers.

The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is one of the most popular experimental paradigms for comparing complex decision-making across groups. Most commonly, IGT behavior is analyzed using frequentist tests to compare performance across groups, and to compare inferred parameters of cognitive models developed for the IGT. Here, we present a Bayesian alternative based on Bayesian repeated-measures ANOVA for comparing performance, and a suite of three complementary model-based methods for assessing the cognitive processes underlying IGT performance. The three model-based methods involve Bayesian hierarchical parameter estimation, Bayes factor model comparison, and Bayesian latent-mixture modeling. We illustrate these Bayesian methods by applying them to test the extent to which differences in intuitive versus deliberate decision style are associated with differences in IGT performance. The results show that intuitive and deliberate decision-makers behave similarly on the IGT, and the modeling analyses consistently suggest that both groups of decision-makers rely on similar cognitive processes. Our results challenge the notion that individual differences in intuitive and deliberate decision styles have a broad impact on decision-making. They also highlight the advantages of Bayesian methods, especially their ability to quantify evidence in favor of the null hypothesis, and that they allow model-based analyses to incorporate hierarchical and latent-mixture structures

Bayesian techniques for analyzing group differences in the Iowa Gambling Task: A case study of intuitive and deliberate decision-makers.

The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is one of the most popular experimental paradigms for comparing complex decision-making across groups. Most commonly, IGT behavior is analyzed using frequentist tests to compare performance across groups, and to compare inferred parameters of cognitive models developed for the IGT. Here, we present a Bayesian alternative based on Bayesian repeated-measures ANOVA for comparing performance, and a suite of three complementary model-based methods for assessing the cognitive processes underlying IGT performance. The three model-based methods involve Bayesian hierarchical parameter estimation, Bayes factor model comparison, and Bayesian latent-mixture modeling. We illustrate these Bayesian methods by applying them to test the extent to which differences in intuitive versus deliberate decision style are associated with differences in IGT performance. The results show that intuitive and deliberate decision-makers behave similarly on the IGT, and the modeling analyses consistently suggest that both groups of decision-makers rely on similar cognitive processes. Our results challenge the notion that individual differences in intuitive and deliberate decision styles have a broad impact on decision-making. They also highlight the advantages of Bayesian methods, especially their ability to quantify evidence in favor of the null hypothesis, and that they allow model-based analyses to incorporate hierarchical and latent-mixture structures