Skip to main content
Log in

Preregistration of Modeling Exercises May Not Be Useful

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Computational Brain & Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a commentary on Lee et al.’s (2019) article encouraging preregistration of model development, fitting, and evaluation. While we are in general agreement with Lee et al.’s characterization of the modeling process, we disagree on whether preregistration of this process will move the scientific enterprise forward. We emphasize the subjective and exploratory nature of model development, and point out that “under-modeling” of data (relying on black-box approaches applied to data without data exploration) is as big a problem as “over-modeling” (fitting noise, resulting in models that generalize poorly). We also note the potential long-run negative impact of preregistration on future generations of cognitive scientists. It is our opinion that preregistration of model development will lead to less, and to less creative, exploratory analysis (i.e., to more under-modeling), and that Lee at al.’s primary goals can be achieved by requiring publication of raw data and code. We conclude our commentary with suggestions on how to move forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: the two cultures. Statistical Science, 16, 199–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnaro, D.R., Aranovich, G.J., McClure, S.M., Pitt, M.A., Myung, J.I. (2016). On the functional form of temporal discounting: an optimized adaptive test. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52, 233–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M.D., Criss, A.H., Devezer, B., et al. (2019). Computational Brain & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00029-y.

  • Lewis, J., Lee, Y., MacEachern, S. (2012). Robust inference via the blended paradigm. In Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings (pp. 1773–1786).

  • Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling model for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B., Dennis, S., Van Zandt, T. (2014). Likelihood free Bayesian analysis of memory models. Psychological Review, 120, 667–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zandt, T., Colonius, H., Proctor, R. (2000). A comparison of two response time models applied to perceptual matching. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 7, 208–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., Lu, P., MacEachern, S.N., Xu, R. (2019). Calibrated Bayes factors for model comparison. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 89(4), 591–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, Q., MacEachern, S., Peruggia, M. (2011). Bayesian synthesis: combining subjective analyses, with an application to ozone data. Annals of Applied Statistics, 5, 1678–1698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES-1424481 and No. DMS-1613110.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trisha Van Zandt.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

MacEachern, S.N., Van Zandt, T. Preregistration of Modeling Exercises May Not Be Useful. Comput Brain Behav 2, 179–182 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00038-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00038-x

Keywords

Navigation