Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Gaze following: how (not) to derive predictions from a computational model

Gaze following: how (not) to derive predictions from a computational model We thank the four commentators for carefully evaluating our model ( Triesch, Teuscher, Deák, & Carlson, 2006 ) and sharing their opinions. We will respond to the commentaries one by one. Chris Moore focuses on two important limitations of our model: our choice not to incorporate attentional cueing mechanisms, and our choice to ignore spatial aspects of gaze following. We agree with his comments. It is important to emphasize, however, that there are good reasons to develop computational models in an incremental fashion. Richardson and Thomas, in their commentary, put it very nicely: ‘Overly complex models are time consuming to build and run the risk of revealing little about the potential causes of a particular behavior, since credit and blame assignment can become opaque.’ Our choice was thus to start with a very simple model, which we view as a useful stepping stone for the development of more complex and powerful models. In fact, our current work has been extending the present model in the suggested directions (see Jasso, Triesch & Teuscher, 2005, for recent results). Gergely Csibra's commentary nicely illustrates some pitfalls of deriving and interpreting the predictions of a computational model. In a first manipulation of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Developmental Science Wiley

Gaze following: how (not) to derive predictions from a computational model

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/gaze-following-how-not-to-derive-predictions-from-a-computational-YAl7Bn35jY

References (10)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
1363-755X
eISSN
1467-7687
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00474.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We thank the four commentators for carefully evaluating our model ( Triesch, Teuscher, Deák, & Carlson, 2006 ) and sharing their opinions. We will respond to the commentaries one by one. Chris Moore focuses on two important limitations of our model: our choice not to incorporate attentional cueing mechanisms, and our choice to ignore spatial aspects of gaze following. We agree with his comments. It is important to emphasize, however, that there are good reasons to develop computational models in an incremental fashion. Richardson and Thomas, in their commentary, put it very nicely: ‘Overly complex models are time consuming to build and run the risk of revealing little about the potential causes of a particular behavior, since credit and blame assignment can become opaque.’ Our choice was thus to start with a very simple model, which we view as a useful stepping stone for the development of more complex and powerful models. In fact, our current work has been extending the present model in the suggested directions (see Jasso, Triesch & Teuscher, 2005, for recent results). Gergely Csibra's commentary nicely illustrates some pitfalls of deriving and interpreting the predictions of a computational model. In a first manipulation of

Journal

Developmental Science – Wiley

Published: Mar 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.