- ŵ=.2, â=.8, ĉ=.6: So what? On the meaning of parameter estimates from reinforcement-learning models
- Volume | Issue number
- 2 | 3
- Pages (from-to)
- Document type
- Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FMG)
Amsterdam University College (AUC)
Faculty of Science (FNWI)
- Psychology Research Institute (PsyRes)
In their comment on the article by Steingroever, Wetzels, and Wagenmakers (2014), Konstantinidis, Speekenbrink, Stout, Ahn, and Shanks (2014) convincingly argue why a wide range of sophisticated model comparison methods is required to select a good model for the Iowa gambling task (IGT). While we agree with Konstantinidis et al. on this count, the focus of Steingroever et al. was not on model comparison. Here we clarify our initial goal, which is to illustrate why assessment of absolute model performance is necessary to avoid premature conclusions about the psychological processes that drive performance on the IGT. In addition, we elaborate on the advantages and drawbacks of both the post hoc absolute fit method and the simulation method. Finally, we highlight the distinction between statistical aspects of model adequacy and psychological relevance of parameter estimates.
- go to publisher's site
- Final publisher version
- Other links
- Link to publication in Scopus
- Brief report
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library, or send a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.