Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T12:31:46.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bayesian Semiparametric Longitudinal Inverse-Probit Mixed Models for Category Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2024

Minerva Mukhopadhyay
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Technology
Jacie R. McHaney
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Bharath Chandrasekaran
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Abhra Sarkar*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
*
Correspondence should be made to Abhra Sarkar, Department of Statistics and Data Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, 105 East 24th Street D9800, Austin, TX78712, USA. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Understanding how the adult human brain learns novel categories is an important problem in neuroscience. Drift-diffusion models are popular in such contexts for their ability to mimic the underlying neural mechanisms. One such model for gradual longitudinal learning was recently developed in Paulon et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 116:1114–1127, 2021). In practice, category response accuracies are often the only reliable measure recorded by behavioral scientists to describe human learning. Category response accuracies are, however, often the only reliable measure recorded by behavioral scientists to describe human learning. To our knowledge, however, drift-diffusion models for such scenarios have never been considered in the literature before. To address this gap, in this article, we build carefully on Paulon et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 116:1114–1127, 2021), but now with latent response times integrated out, to derive a novel biologically interpretable class of ‘inverse-probit’ categorical probability models for observed categories alone. However, this new marginal model presents significant identifiability and inferential challenges not encountered originally for the joint model in Paulon et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 116:1114–1127, 2021). We address these new challenges using a novel projection-based approach with a symmetry-preserving identifiability constraint that allows us to work with conjugate priors in an unconstrained space. We adapt the model for group and individual-level inference in longitudinal settings. Building again on the model’s latent variable representation, we design an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for posterior computation. We evaluate the empirical performance of the method through simulation experiments. The practical efficacy of the method is illustrated in applications to longitudinal tone learning studies.

Type
Theory & Methods
Copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-024-09947-8.

References

Agresti, A.. (2018). An introduction to categorical data analysis, Wiley.Google Scholar
Albert, J. H., Chib, S.. (1993). Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American statistical Association, 88, 669679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, F. G., Noble, S., Filoteo, J. V., Waldron, E. M., Ell, S. W.. (2003). Category learning deficits in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychology, 17, 115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, A.. (2017). First-order methods in optimization, SIAM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogacz, R., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Forstmann, B. U., Nieuwenhuis, S.. (2010). The neural basis of the speed-accuracy tradeoff. Trends in Neurosciences, 33, 1016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borooah, V. K.. (2002). Logit and probit: Ordered and multinomial models, Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, C. D., Hanks, T. D.. (2016). Neural underpinnings of the evidence accumulator. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 37, 149157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, S. D., Heathcote, A.. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgette, L. F., Nordheim, E. V.. (2012). The trace restriction: An alternative identification strategy for the Bayesian multinomial probit model. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 30, 404410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgette, L. F., Puelz, D., Hahn, P. R.. (2021). A symmetric prior for multinomial probit models. Bayesian Analysis, 16, 9911008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanagh, J. F., Wiecki, T. V., Cohen, M. X., Figueroa, C. M., Samanta, J., Sherman, S. J., Frank, M. J.. (2011). Subthalamic nucleus stimulation reverses mediofrontal influence over decision threshold. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandrasekaran, B., Yi, H.-G., Maddox, W. T.. (2014). Dual-learning systems during speech category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 488495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandrasekaran, B., Yi, H.-G., Smayda, K. E., Maddox, W. T.. (2016). Effect of explicit dimensional instruction on speech category learning. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 566582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chhikara, R.. (1988). The inverse Gaussian distribution: Theory, methodology, and applications, CRC Press.Google Scholar
Chib, S., Greenberg, E.. (1998). Analysis of multivariate probit models. Biometrika, 85, 347361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. R., Miller, H. D.. (1965). The theory of stochastic processes, CRC Press.Google Scholar
de Boor, C.. (1978). A practical guide to splines, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deo, S. (2018). Algebraic topology. Texts and Readings in Mathematics (Vol. 27). Hindustan Book Agency.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, L., Gold, J. I.. (2013). The basal ganglia’s contributions to perceptual decision making. Neuron, 79, 640649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duchi, J., Shalev-Shwartz, S., Singer, Y., & Chandra, T. (2008). Efficient projections onto the l 1-ball for learning in high dimensions. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on machine learning (pp. 272–279).Google Scholar
Dufau, S., Grainger, J., Ziegler, J. C.. (2012). How to say “no” to a nonword: A leaky competing accumulator model of lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1117.Google Scholar
Dunson, D. B., Neelon, B.. (2003). Bayesian inference on order-constrained parameters in generalized linear models. Biometrics, 59, 286295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eilers, P. H., Marx, B. D.. (1996). Flexible smoothing with b-splines and penalties. Statistical Science, 11, 89102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filoteo, J. V., Lauritzen, S., Maddox, W. T.. (2010). Removing the frontal lobes: The effects of engaging executive functions on perceptual category learning. Psychological Science, 21, 415423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glimcher, P. W., Fehr, E.. (2013). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gold, J. I., Shadlen, M. N.. (2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 535574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunn, L. H., Dunson, D. B.. (2005). A transformation approach for incorporating monotone or unimodal constraints. Biostatistics, 6, 434449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heekeren, H. R., Marrett, S., Bandettini, P. A., Ungerleider, L. G.. (2004). A general mechanism for perceptual decision-making in the human brain. Nature, 431, 859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubert, L., Arabie, P.. (1985). Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification, 2, 193218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johndrow, J., Dunson, D., & Lum, K. (2013). Diagonal orthant multinomial probit models. In Artificial intelligence and statistics (pp. 29–38).Google Scholar
Kim, S., Potter, K., Craigmile, P. F., Peruggia, M., Van Zandt, T.. (2017). A Bayesian race model for recognition memory. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112, 7791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, J. W., Green, P. J.. (2007). Bayesian model-based clustering procedures. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 16, 526558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leite, F. P., Ratcliff, R.. (2010). Modeling reaction time and accuracy of multiple-alternative decisions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 246273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Llanos, F., McHaney, J. R., Schuerman, W. L., Yi, H. G., Leonard, M. K., Chandrasekaran, B.. (2020). Non-invasive peripheral nerve stimulation selectively enhances speech category learning in adults. NPJ Science of Learning, 1, 111.Google Scholar
Lu, J. (1995). Degradation processes and related reliability models. PhD thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
McHaney, J. R., Tessmer, R., Roark, C. L., Chandrasekaran, B.. (2021). Working memory relates to individual differences in speech category learning: Insights from computational modeling and pupillometry. Brain and Language, 22, 115.Google Scholar
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 time pressure. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 437449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J. S.. (2015). Functional regression. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 2, 321359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parthasarathy, A., Hancock, K. E., Bennett, K., DeGruttola, V., Polley, D. B.. (2020). Bottom-up and top-down neural signatures of disordered multi-talker speech perception in adults with normal hearing. Elife, 9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulon, G., Llanos, F., Chandrasekaran, B., Sarkar, A.. (2021). Bayesian semiparametric longitudinal drift-diffusion mixed models for tone learning in adults. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116, 11141127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peelle, J. E.. (2018). Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear and Hearing, 39, 204214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purcell, B. A.. (2013). Neural mechanisms of perceptual decision making, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Ramsay, J. O., Silverman, B. W.. (2007). Applied functional data analysis: Methods and case studies, Springer.Google Scholar
Rand, W. M.. (1971). Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66, 846850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, R.. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, R., McKoon, G.. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratcliff, R., Rouder, J. N.. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., McKoon, G.. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 260281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reetzke, R., Xie, Z., Llanos, F., Chandrasekaran, B.. (2018). Tracing the trajectory of sensory plasticity across different stages of speech learning in adulthood. Current Biology, 28, 14191427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roark, C. L., Smayda, K. E., & Chandrasekaran, B. (2021). Auditory and visual category learning in musicians and nonmusicians. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.Google Scholar
Robert, C. P., & Casella, G. (2004). Monte Carlo statistical methods. Springer Texts in Statistics (2nd ed.). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robison, M. K., Unsworth, N.. (2019). Pupillometry tracks fluctuations in working memory performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 407419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, S. M., Kelly, J. J., Sullivan, R. J., Perry, W. J., Mercer, D., Davis, R. M., Washburn, T. D., Sager, E. V., Boyce, J. B., Bristow, V. L.. (1996). Stochastic processes, Wiley.Google Scholar
Rudin, W. (1991). Functional analysis. International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Inc.Google Scholar
Schall, J. D.. (2001). Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sen, D., Patra, S., & Dunson, D. (2018). Constrained inference through posterior projections. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05741.Google Scholar
Smayda, K. E., Chandrasekaran, B., & Maddox, W. T. (2015). Enhanced cognitive and perceptual processing: A computational basis for the musician advantage in speech learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. L., Ratcliff, R.. (2004). Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends in Neurosciences, 27, 161168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, P. L., Vickers, D.. (1988). The accumulator model of two-choice discrimination. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32, 135168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usher, M., McClelland, J. L.. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade, S.. (2023). Bayesian cluster analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 381, 120.Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, J.-L., Chiou, J.-M., Müller, H.-G.. (2016). Functional data analysis. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 3, 257295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Jongman, A., Sereno, J. A.. (2003). Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 10331043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y., Spence, M. M., Jongman, A., Sereno, J. A.. (1999). Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 36493658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitmore, G., Seshadri, V.. (1987). A heuristic derivation of the inverse gaussian distribution. The American Statistician, 41, 280281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winn, M. B., Wendt, D., Koelewijn, T., Kuchinsky, S. E.. (2018). Best practices and advice for using pupillometry to measure listening effort: An introduction for those who want to get started. Trends in Hearing, 22, 132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., Festen, J. M.. (2011). Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: The influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear and Hearing, 32, 498510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Mukhopadhyay et al. supplementary material

Mukhopadhyay et al. supplementary material
Download Mukhopadhyay et al. supplementary material(File)
File 410.9 KB