Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience: A Conceptual Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
An Introduction to Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

This tutorial chapter shows how the separate fields of mathematical psychology and cognitive neuroscience can interact to their mutual benefit. Historically, the field of mathematical psychology is mostly concerned with formal theories of behavior, whereas cognitive neuroscience is mostly concerned with empirical measurements of brain activity. Despite these superficial differences in method, the ultimate goal of both disciplines is the same: to understand the workings of human cognition. In recognition of this common purpose, mathematical psychologists have recently started to apply their models in cognitive neuroscience, and cognitive neuroscientists have borrowed and extended key ideas that originated from mathematical psychology. This chapter consists of three main sections: the first describes the field of mathematical psychology, the second describes the field of cognitive neuroscience, and the third describes their recent combination: model-based cognitive neuroscience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    At the 2009 annual meeting of the Society for Mathematical Psychology, one of the plenary speakers discussed some of his beginning exploits in cognitive neuroscience. Following his talk, the first question from the audience was whether he had now “joined the dark force”.

  2. 2.

    In this popular perceptual task, the participant has to judge the apparent direction of a cloud of moving dots.

References

  1. Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ, Eichele T, Brown S, Serences JT (2011) Reciprocal relations between cognitive neuroscience and formal cognitive models: Opposites attract? Trends CognitSci 15:272

    Google Scholar 

  2. Song XY, Lee SY (2012)A tutorial on the Bayesian approach for analyzing structural equation models. J Math Psychol 56:135

    Google Scholar 

  3. Frank TD, Silva PL, Turvey MT (2012) Symmetry axiom of Haken–Kelso–Bunz coordination dynamics revisited in the context of cognitive activity. J Math Psychol 56:149

    Google Scholar 

  4. Asano M, Basieva I, Khrennikov A, Ohya M, Tanaka Y (2012) Quantum-like generalization of the Bayesian updating scheme for objective and subjective mental uncertainties. J MathPsychol 56:166

    Google Scholar 

  5. Luce RD (2012) Torgerson’s conjecture and Luce’s magnitude production representation imply an empirically false property. J Math Psychol 56:176

    Google Scholar 

  6. Poppe S, Benner P, ElzeT (2012)Apredictive approach to nonparametric inference for adaptive sequential sampling of psychophysical experiments. J Math Psychol 56:179

    Google Scholar 

  7. DeCarlo LT (2012) On a signal detection approach to m–alternative forced choice with bias, with maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches to estimation. J Math Psychol 56:196

    Google Scholar 

  8. DutilhGvan Ravenzwaaij D, Nieuwenhuis S, van der Maas HLJ, ForstmannBU, Wagenmakers EJ (2012) How to measure post–error slowing: A confound and a simple solution. J MathPsychol 56:208

    Google Scholar 

  9. Townsend JT (2008) Mathematical psychology: Prospects for the 21st century: A guest editorial. J Math Psychol 52:269

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gold JI, ShadlenMN(2001) Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli.Trends Cognit Sci 5:10

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2002) Banburismus and the brain: Decoding the relationship betweensensory stimuli, decisions, and reward. Neuron 36:299

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2007) The neural basis of decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:535

    Google Scholar 

  13. van Ravenzwaaij D, Mulder M, Tuerlinckx F, Wagenmakers EJ (2012) Do the dynamics of prior information depend on task context?An analysis of optimal performance and an empirical test. Front Cognit Sci 3:132

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wagenmakers EJ (2009) Methodological and empirical developments for the Ratcliff diffusion model of response times and accuracy. Eur J Cognit Psychol 21:641

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brinley JF (1965) Cognitive sets, speed and accuracy of performance in the elderly. In:Welford AT, Birren JE (eds) Behavior, aging and the nervous system. Thomas, Springfield, pp 114–149

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cerella J (1985) Information processing rates in the elderly. Psychol Bull 98:67

    Google Scholar 

  17. SalthouseTA(1996)The processing–speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. PsycholRev 103:403

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ratcliff R, Thapar A, Gomez P, McKoon G (2004)A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging in the lexical–decision task. Psychol Aging 19:278

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ratcliff R, Thapar A, McKoon G (2007) Application of the diffusion model to two–choice tasksfor adults 75–90 years old. Psychol Aging 22:56

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ratcliff R, Thapar A, McKoon G (2004) A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on recognition memory. J Mem Lang 50:408

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wagenmakers EJ, Ratcliff R, Gomez P, McKoon G (2008) A diffusion model account of criterion shifts in the lexical decision task. J Mem Lang 58:140

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bogacz R, Brown E, Moehlis J, Holmes P, Cohen JD (2006) The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced choice tasks.Psychol Rev 113:700

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ditterich J (2010)A comparison between mechanisms of multi–alternative perceptual decision making: Ability to explain human behavior, predictions for neurophysiology, and relationship with decision theory. Front Decis Neurosci 4:184

    Google Scholar 

  24. Usher M, McClelland JL (2001) On the time course of perceptual choice: The leaky competing accumulator model. Psychol Rev 108:550

    Google Scholar 

  25. Drugowitsch J, Moreno–Bote R, Churchland AK, Shadlen MN, Pouget A (2012) The cost of accumulating evidence in perceptual decision making. J Neurosci 32:3612

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cisek P, Puskas GA, El–Murr S (2009) Decisions in changing conditions: The urgency–gating model. J Neurosci 29:11560

    Google Scholar 

  27. Krajbich I, Armel C, Rangel A (2010) Visual fixations and comparison of value in simple choice. Nat Neurosci 13:1292

    Google Scholar 

  28. Coltheart M (2006) What has functional neuroimaging told us about the mind (so far)? Cortex42:323

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ulrich R (2009) Uncovering unobservable cognitive mechanisms: The contribution of mathematical models. In: Rösler F, Ranganath C, Röder B, Kluwe RH (eds) Neuroimaging of human memory: linking cognitive processes to neural systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 25–41

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rouw R, Scholte HS (2007) Increased structural connectivity in grapheme-color synesthesia.Nat Neurosci 10:792

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jepma M, Nieuwenhuis S (2011) Pupil diameter predicts changes in the exploration exploitation trade-off: Evidence for the adaptive gain theory. J Cognit Neurosci 23:1587

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ding L, Gold JI (2012) Separate, causal roles of the caudate in saccadic choice and execution in a perceptual decision task. Neuron 75:865

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gratton C, Nomura EM, Pérez F, D’Esposito M (2012) Focal brain lesions to critical locations cause widespread disruption of the modular organization of the brain. J Cognit Neurosci24:1275

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wu S, Cheng CK, Feng J, D’Angelo L, Alain C, Spence I (2012) Playing a first–person shooter video game induces neuroplastic change. J Cognit Neurosci 24:1286

    Google Scholar 

  35. Niedeggen M, Michael L, HesselmannG(2012) Closing the gates to consciousness: Distractors activate a central inhibition process. J Cognit Neurosci 24:1294

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bardi L, Kanai R, Mapelli D, Walsh V (2012) TMS of the FEF interferes with spatial conflict.J Cognit Neurosci 24: 1305

    Google Scholar 

  37. Premereur E, Vanduffel W, Janssen P (2012) Local field potential activity associated with temporal expectations in the macaque lateral intraparietal area. J Cognit Neurosci 24:1314

    Google Scholar 

  38. Manuel AL, Bernasconi F, Murray MM, Spierer L (2012) Spatio–temporal brain dynamics mediating post–error behavioral adjustments. J Cognit Neurosci 24:1331

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fraedrich EM, Flanagin VL, Duann JR, Brandt T, Glasauer S (2012) newblock Hippocampal involvement in processing of indistinct visual motion stimuli. JJ Cognit Neurosci 24:1344

    Google Scholar 

  40. Brown SD (2012) Common ground for behavioural and neuroimaging research. Aust J Psychol64:4

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schall JD (2004) On building a bridge between brain and behavior. Annu Rev Psychol 55:23

    Google Scholar 

  42. Teller D (1984) Linking propositions. Vis Res 24:1233

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ashby FG, Helie S (2011) A tutorial on computational cognitive neuroscience: Modeling the neurodynamics of cognition. J Math Psychol 55:273

    Google Scholar 

  44. Forstmann BU, Dutilh G, Brown S, Neumann J, von Cramon DY, Ridderinkhof KR, Wagenmakers EJ (2008) Striatum and pre–SMA facilitate decision–making under time pressure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:17538

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mink JW (1996) The basal ganglia: Focused selection and inhibition of competing motor programs. Prog Neurobiol 50:381

    Google Scholar 

  46. Marr D (1982) Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. Henry Holt and Company, San Francisco (HW. Freeman)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dolan RJ (2008) Neuroimaging of cognition: Past, present, and future. Neuron 60:496

    Google Scholar 

  48. Friston KJ (2009) Modalities, modes, and models in functional neuroimaging. Science 326:399

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hanes DP, Schall JD (1996) Neural control of voluntary movement initiation. Science 274:427

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mars RB, Shea NJ, Kolling N, RushworthMF. (2012) Model-based analyses: Promises, pitfalls, and example applications to the study of cognitive control. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove), 65(2):252–67

    Google Scholar 

  51. O’Doherty JP, Hampton A, Kim H (2007) Model–based fMRI and its application to reward learning and decision making. Ann NY Acad Sci 1104:35

    Google Scholar 

  52. Corrado G, Doya K (2007) Understanding neural coding through the model–based analysis of decision making. J Neurosci 27:8178

    Google Scholar 

  53. ForstmannBU, Brown S, Dutilh G, Neumann J, Wagenmakers EJ (2010) The neural substrate of prior information in perceptual decision making:A model-based analysis. Front Hum Neurosci4:40

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mulder M, Wagenmakers EJ, Ratcliff R, Boekel W, Forstmann BU (2012) Bias in the brain:A diffusion model analysis of prior probability and potential payoff. J Neurosci 32:2335

    Google Scholar 

  55. Anderson JR, Fincham JM, QinY, StoccoA (2008)A central circuit of the mind. Trends CognitSci 12:136

    Google Scholar 

  56. Borst JP, Taatgen NA, Stocco A van Rijn H (2010) The neural correlates of problem states:Testing fMRI predictions of a computational model of multitasking. PLoS ONE 5

    Google Scholar 

  57. Nosofsky RM (1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship.J Exp Psychol: Gener 115:39

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nosofsky RM, Palmeri TJ (1997) An exemplar–based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychol Rev 104:266

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nosofsky RM, Little DR, James TW (2012) Activation in the neural network responsible for categorization and recognition reflects parameter changes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:333

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, McClelland JL (1986) A general framework for parallel distributed processing. In: Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL, the PDP Research Group (eds) Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol 1). MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 45–76

    Google Scholar 

  61. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986) Learning internal representations by error propagation.In: Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL, the PDP Research Group (eds) Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 318–362

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ratcliff R, Frank MJ (2012) Reinforcement–based decision making in corticostriatal circuits:Mutual constraints by neurocomputational and diffusion models. Neural Comput 24:1186

    Google Scholar 

  63. Stocco A, Lebiere C, Anderson JR (2010) Conditional routing of information to the cortex: A model of the basal ganglia’s role in cognitive coordination. Psychol Rev 117:541

    Google Scholar 

  64. Stocco A (2012) Acetylcholine–based entropy in response selection: A model of how striatal interneurons modulate exploration, exploitation, and response variability in decision–making.Front Neurosci 6:18

    Google Scholar 

  65. Churchland AK, Kiani R, Shadlen MN (2008) Decision–making with multiple alternatives.Nat Neurosci 11:693

    Google Scholar 

  66. PurcellBA, Heitz RP, Cohen JY, Schall JD, Logan GD, Palmeri TJ (2010) Neurally constrained modeling of perceptual decision making. Psychol Rev 117:1113

    Google Scholar 

  67. van Maanen L, Brown S, Eichele T, Wagenmakers EJ, Ho T, Serences J, Forstmann BU (2011)Neural correlates of trial–to–trial fluctuations in response caution. J Neurosci 31:17488

    Google Scholar 

  68. Deneve S (2012) Making decisions with unknown sensory reliability. Front Neurosci 6:75

    Google Scholar 

  69. Milosavljevic M, Malmaud J, Huth A, Koch C, Rangel A (2010) The Drift Diffusion Model can account for the accuracy and reaction time of value–based choices under high and low timepressure. Judgm Decis Making 5:437

    Google Scholar 

  70. Miller GA (2010) Mistreating psychology in the decades of the brain. Perspect Psychol Sci5:716

    Google Scholar 

  71. Insel T (2010) Faulty circuits. Sci Am 302:44

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wagenmakers EJ, van der Maas HJL, Grasman PP (2007) Psychon Bull Rev 14:3

    Google Scholar 

  73. Logothetis NK (2003) In: Parker A (ed) The physiology of cognitive processes. OxfordUniversity Press, NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ratcliff R, McKoon G (2008) The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two–choice decision tasks. Neural Comput 20:873

    Google Scholar 

  75. ChurchlandAK, Ditterich J (in press) Newadvances in understanding decisions among multiple alternatives. Curr Opin Neurobiol

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Science Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129, 1018, Amsterdam, WS, The Netherlands

    Birte U. Forstmann

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 129, 1018, Amsterdam, VZ, The Netherlands

    Birte U. Forstmann

  3. Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018, Amsterdam, XA, The Netherlands

    Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Authors
  1. Birte U. Forstmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birte U. Forstmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Science Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Birte U. Forstmann

  2. Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Forstmann, B., Wagenmakers, EJ. (2015). Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience: A Conceptual Introduction. In: Forstmann, B., Wagenmakers, EJ. (eds) An Introduction to Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2236-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation