On the minimum description length complexity of multinomial processing tree models

Journal of Mathematical Psychology

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 291-303

  Wu, Hao ^a   Myung, Jay I ^a   Batchelder, William H ^b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Minimum description length; Model complexity; Multinomial processing tree models

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952422671     PISSN: 00222496     EISSN: 10960880     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmp.2010.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Breakthroughs in statistics 1973, (1992), Springer Verlag, NY. Kotz, Johnson (Eds.).
2. Batchelder W.H., Riefer D.M. Separation of storage and retrieval factors in free recall of clusterable pairs. Psychological Review 1980, 87:375-397.
3. Batchelder W.H., Riefer D.M. The statistical analysis of a model for storage and retrieval processes in human memory. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 1986, 39:129-149.
4. Batchelder W.H., Riefer D.M. Multinomial processing models of source monitoring. Psychological Review 1990, 97:548-564.
5. Batchelder W.H., Riefer D.M. Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1999, 6:57-86.
6. Bayen U.J., Murnane K., Erdfelder E. Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models for source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22:197-215.
7. Casela G., Berger R.L. Statistical inference 2001, Duxbury Press. 2nd edition.
8. Chechile R.A. New models for the Chechille-Meyer task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2004, 48:364-384.
9. Erdfelder E., Auer T.-S., Hilbig B.E., Aßfalg A., Moshagen M., Nadarevic L. Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature. Zeitschrift für Psychologie - Journal of Psychology 2009, 217(3):108-124.
10. Grünwald P. Model selection based on minimum description length. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2000, 44:133-152.
11. Grünwald P. The minimum description length principle 2007, MIT Press.
12. Grünwald P., Myung I.J., Pitt M.A. Advances in minimum description length: Theory and applications 2005, MIT Press.
13. Hu X., Batchelder W.H. The statistical analysis of general processing tree modelswith the EM algorithm. Psychometrika 1994, 59:21-47.
14. Hu X., Phillips G.A. GPT.EXE: A powerful tool for visualizing and analysis of general processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 1999, 31:220-234.
15. Knapp B., Batchelder W.H. Representing parametric order constraints in multi-trial applications of multinomial processing tree models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2004, 2004:215-229.
16. Lee M.D. On the complexity of additive clustering models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2001, 45:131-148.
17. Lee M.D., Pope K.J. Model selection for the rate problem: A comparison of significance testing, Bayesian, and minimum description length statistical inference. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2006, 50:193-202.
18. Myung I.J. The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2000, 44:190-204.
19. Myung I.J., Forster M.R., Browne M.W. Guest editors' introduction, special issue on model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2000, 44:1-2.
20. Myung J.I., Navarro D.J., Pitt M.A. Model selection by normalized maximum likelihood. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2006, 50:167-179.
21. Myung I.J., Pitt M. Applying Occam's razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1997, 4(1):79-95.
22. Myung I.J., Pitt M., Navarro D.J. Does response scaling cause the generalized context model to mimic a prototype model?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14(6):1043-1050.
23. Navarro D.J. A note on the applied use of MDL approximations. Neural Computation 2004, 16:1763-1768.
24. Navarro D.J., Lee M.D. Common and distinctive features in stimulus representation: A modified version of the contrast model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2004, 11:961-974.
25. Pitt M.A., Myung I.J. When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Psychology 2002, 6:421-425.
26. Pitt M.A., Myung I.J., Zhang S Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. Psychological Review 2002, 109:472-491.
27. Purdy, B. P., & Batchelder, W. H. A context free language for binary multinomial processing tree models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, in press (). doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2009.07.009.
28. Riefer D.M., Batchelder W.H. Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychological Review 1988, 95:318-339.
29. Riefer D.M., Batchelder W.H. Statistical inference for multinomial processing tree models. Mathematical psychology: Current developments 1991, 313-335. Springer-Verlag, New York. J.-P. Doignon, J.-C. Falmagne (Eds.).
30. Riefer D.M., Hu X., Batchelder W.H. Response strategies in source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1994, 20:680-693.
31. Rissanen J.J. Fisher information and stochastic complexity. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 1996, 42:40-47.
32. Rissanen J.J. Strong optimality of the normalized ML models as universal codes and information in data. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 2001, 47:1712-1717.
33. Schwartz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 1978, 6:461-464.
34. Wu, H., Myung, J. I., & Batchelder, W. H. Minimum description length model selection of multinomial processing tree models. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review (in press).