A Tutorial on Cognitive Modeling for Cognitive Aging Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive aging researchers are interested in understanding how cognitive processes change in old age, but the standard analyses used on observed behavior (e.g., ANOVA) are inappropriate for measuring age differences in latent cognitive processes. Cognitive models formalize the relationship between underlying processes and observed behavior and are more suitable for identifying what processes are associated with aging. This article provides a tutorial on how to fit and interpret cognitive models to measure age differences in cognitive processes. We work with an example of a two choice discrimination task and describe how to fit models in the highly flexible modeling software Stan. We describe how to use hierarchical modeling to estimate both group and individual effects simultaneously, and we detail model fitting in a Bayesian statistical framework, which, among other benefits, enables aging researchers to quantify evidence for null effects. We contend that more widespread use of cognitive modeling among cognitive aging researchers may be useful for addressing potential issues of non-replicability in the field, as cognitive modeling is more suitable to addressing questions about what cognitive processes are (or are not) affected by aging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".