Articlegreen2018

The standard Bayesian model is normatively invalid for biological brains

4 citations0/0 files storedBehavioral and Brain Sciences

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Abstract

We show that the benchmark Bayesian framework that Rahnev & Denison (R&D) used to assess optimality is actually suboptimal under realistic assumptions about how noise corrupts decision making in biological brains. This model is therefore invalid qua normative standard. We advise against generally forsaking optimality and argue that a biologically constrained definition of optimality could serve as an important driver for scientific progress.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

References

2014The evolution of decision rules in complex environments 2016Computational Precision of Mental Inference as Critical Source of Human Choice Suboptimality 2012A Range-Normalization Model of Context-Dependent Choice: A New Model and Evidence 2016Economic irrationality is optimal during noisy decision making 2014Optimal decision making in heterogeneous and biased environments 2016Reply to Davis-Stober et al.: Violations of rationality in a psychophysical task are not aggregation artifacts

Cited by

2019Selective integration during sequential sampling in posterior neural signals 2025Perspectives on the Mechanistic Underpinnings of Choice Biases

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.