Towards better computational models of the balance scale task: A reply to Shultz and Takane

Han L. J. van der Maas; Philip T. Quinlan; Brenda R. J. Jansen

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.009

Towards better computational models of the balance scale task: A reply to Shultz and Takane

Han L. J. van der Maas, Philip T. Quinlan, Brenda R. J. Jansen

Psychology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

Abstract

In contrast to Shultz and Takane [Shultz, T.R., & Takane, Y. (2007). Rule following and rule use in the balance-scale task. Cognition, in press, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.004.] we do not accept that the traditional Rule Assessment Method (RAM) of scoring responses on the balance scale task has advantages over latent class analysis (LCA): RAM is similar to a very restricted form of LCA. The apparent shortcomings of LCA are also less severe than they suggest. Via new simulations we show that LCA detects small classes reliably. We also counter their concerns regarding the torque difference effect and we underline the problems connectionist models have with correctly responding to balance items. Despite these differences in opinion we agree with Shultz and Takane on the possible avenues for future research. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	473-479
Number of pages	7
Journal	Cognition
Volume	103
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.009
Publication status	Published - Jun 2007

Keywords

balance scale task
latent class analysis
rule-assessment method
torque difference effect
LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS
COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIES
RULES

Access to Document

10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.009

Cite this

@article{8878585a6c8b4352ad813df6a3de35ba,

title = "Towards better computational models of the balance scale task: A reply to Shultz and Takane",

abstract = "In contrast to Shultz and Takane [Shultz, T.R., & Takane, Y. (2007). Rule following and rule use in the balance-scale task. Cognition, in press, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.004.] we do not accept that the traditional Rule Assessment Method (RAM) of scoring responses on the balance scale task has advantages over latent class analysis (LCA): RAM is similar to a very restricted form of LCA. The apparent shortcomings of LCA are also less severe than they suggest. Via new simulations we show that LCA detects small classes reliably. We also counter their concerns regarding the torque difference effect and we underline the problems connectionist models have with correctly responding to balance items. Despite these differences in opinion we agree with Shultz and Takane on the possible avenues for future research. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.",

keywords = "balance scale task, latent class analysis, rule-assessment method, torque difference effect, LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS, COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENT, STRATEGIES, RULES",

author = "{van der Maas}, {Han L. J.} and Quinlan, {Philip T.} and Jansen, {Brenda R. J.}",

year = "2007",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.009",

language = "English",

volume = "103",

pages = "473--479",

journal = "Cognition",

issn = "0010-0277",

publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Towards better computational models of the balance scale task: A reply to Shultz and Takane

AU - van der Maas, Han L. J.

AU - Quinlan, Philip T.

AU - Jansen, Brenda R. J.

PY - 2007/6

Y1 - 2007/6

N2 - In contrast to Shultz and Takane [Shultz, T.R., & Takane, Y. (2007). Rule following and rule use in the balance-scale task. Cognition, in press, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.004.] we do not accept that the traditional Rule Assessment Method (RAM) of scoring responses on the balance scale task has advantages over latent class analysis (LCA): RAM is similar to a very restricted form of LCA. The apparent shortcomings of LCA are also less severe than they suggest. Via new simulations we show that LCA detects small classes reliably. We also counter their concerns regarding the torque difference effect and we underline the problems connectionist models have with correctly responding to balance items. Despite these differences in opinion we agree with Shultz and Takane on the possible avenues for future research. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

AB - In contrast to Shultz and Takane [Shultz, T.R., & Takane, Y. (2007). Rule following and rule use in the balance-scale task. Cognition, in press, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.004.] we do not accept that the traditional Rule Assessment Method (RAM) of scoring responses on the balance scale task has advantages over latent class analysis (LCA): RAM is similar to a very restricted form of LCA. The apparent shortcomings of LCA are also less severe than they suggest. Via new simulations we show that LCA detects small classes reliably. We also counter their concerns regarding the torque difference effect and we underline the problems connectionist models have with correctly responding to balance items. Despite these differences in opinion we agree with Shultz and Takane on the possible avenues for future research. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

KW - balance scale task

KW - latent class analysis

KW - rule-assessment method

KW - torque difference effect

KW - LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS

KW - COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENT

KW - STRATEGIES

KW - RULES

U2 - 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.009

DO - 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.009

M3 - Editorial

SN - 0010-0277

VL - 103

SP - 473

EP - 479

JO - Cognition

JF - Cognition

IS - 3

ER -