BattagliaP. W.HamrickJ. B.TenenbaumJ. B. (2013). Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 18327–18332.
2.
CainM. S.VulE.ClarkK.MitroffS. R. (2012). A Bayesian optimal foraging model of human visual search. Psychological Science, 23, 1047–1054.
FrankM. C. (2013). Throwing out the Bayesian baby with the optimal bathwater: Response to Endress. Cognition, 128, 417–423.
5.
FrankM. C.GoodmanN. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336, 998.
6.
GoodmanN. D.FrankM. C.GriffithsT. L.TenenbaumJ. B.BattagliaP. W.HamrickJ. B. (2015). Relevant and robust: A response to Marcus and Davis (2013). Psychological Science, 26, 539–541.
7.
GriffithsT. L.TenenbaumJ. B. (2006). Optimal prediction in everyday cognition. Psychological Science, 17, 767–773.
8.
GriffithsT. L.TenenbaumJ. B. (2011). Predicting the future as Bayesian inference: People combine prior knowledge with observation when estimating duration and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 725–743.
9.
GweonH.TenenbaumJ. B.SchulzL. E. (2010). Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 9066–9071.
10.
KaoJ.WuJ.BergenN.GoodmanN. (2014). Nonliteral understanding of number words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 12002–12007.
11.
KempC.TenenbaumJ. B. (2008). The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 10687–10692.
12.
KordingK.TenenbaumJ. B.ShadmehrR. (2007). The dynamics of memory are a consequence of optimal adaptation to a changing body. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 779–786.
13.
MarcusG. F.DavisE. (2013). How robust are probabilistic models of higher-level cognition?Psychological Science, 24, 2351–2360.
14.
OaksfordM.ChaterN. (2009). Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning [Target article and commentaries]. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 32, 69–120.
15.
PiantadosiS. T.TenenbaumJ. B.GoodmanN. D. (2012). Bootstrapping in a language of thought: A formal model of numerical concept learning. Cognition, 123, 197–217.
16.
PiantadosiS. T.TileyH.GibsonE. (2011). Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 3526–3529.
17.
RipsL. J.AsmuthJ.BloomfieldA. (2013). Can statistical learning bootstrap the integers?Cognition, 128, 320–330.
18.
SanbornA. N.MansinghkaV. K.GriffithsT. L. (2013). Reconciling intuitive physics and Newtonian mechanics for colliding objects. Psychological Review, 120, 411–437.
19.
SmithK. A.DechterE.TenenbaumJ. B.VulE. (2013). Physical predictions over time. In KnauffM.PauenM.SebanzN.WachsmuthI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1342–1347). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
20.
SmithK. A.VulE. (2013). Sources of uncertainty in intuitive physics. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 185–199.
21.
TéglásE.VulE.GirottoV.GonzalezM.TenenbaumJ. B.BonattiL. L. (2011). Pure reasoning in 12-month-old infants as probabilistic inference. Science, 332, 1054–1059.
22.
TenenbaumJ. B.GriffithsT. L. (2001). The rational basis of representativeness. In MooreJ.StenningK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1036–1041). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.