Bayesian models of human learning are becoming increasingly popular in cognitive science. We argue that their purported confirmation largely relies on a methodology that depends on premises that are inconsistent with the claim that people are Bayesian about learning and inference. Bayesian models in cognitive science derive their appeal from their normative claim that the modeled inference is in some sense rational. Standard accounts of the rationality of Bayesian inference imply predictions that an agent selects the option that maximizes the (...) posterior expected utility. Experimental confirmation of the models, however, has been claimed because of groups of agents that probability match the posterior. Probability matching only constitutes support for the Bayesian claim if additional unobvious and untested (but testable) assumptions are invoked. The alternative strategy of weakening the underlying notion of rationality no longer distinguishes the Bayesian model uniquely. A new account of rationality—either for inference or for decision-making—is required to successfully confirm Bayesian models in cognitive science. (shrink)

Spacing between study trials of an item increases the probability that item will be recalled. This article presents a new model for spacing based on the SAM theory of memory developed by Raaijmakers and Shiffrin (1980, 1981). The model is a generalization of the SAM model as applied to interference paradigms (Mensink & Raaijmakers, 1988, 1989) and may be viewed as a mathematical version of the Component‐Levels theory proposed by Glenberg (1979). It is assumed that on a second presentation of (...) an item, information is added to an existing trace if the episodic memory image corresponding to that item is retrieved. If it is not retrieved, a new image is stored. It is shown that the model predicts many standard findings including the lack of a spacing effect for the recall of at least one of two items each presented once (Ross & Landauer, 1978). (shrink)

I present a framework for modeling memory, retrieval, perception, and their interactions. Recent versions of the models were inspired by Bayesian induction: We chose models that make optimal decisions conditioned on a memory/perceptual system with inherently noisy storage and retrieval. The resultant models are, fortunately, largely consistent with my models dating back to the 1960s, and are therefore natural successors. My recent articles have presented simplified models in order to focus on particular applications. This article takes a larger perspective and (...) places the individual models in a more global framework. I will discuss (1) the storage of episodic traces, the accumulation of these into knowledge (e.g., lexical/semantic traces in the case of words), and the changes in knowledge caused by learning; (2) the retrieval of information from episodic memory and from general knowledge; (3) decisions concerning storage, retrieval, and responding. Examples of applications include episodic recognition and cued and free recall, perceptual identification (naming, yes–no and forced‐choice), lexical decision, and long‐term and short‐term priming. (shrink)