Cited by 82Philosophy and Theoretical SciencePhilosophy and History of ScienceCognitive Computing and Networks

The Algorithmic Level Is the Bridge Between Computation and Brain

Love, Bradley C.·2015·Topics in Cognitive Science

Abstract

Every scientist chooses a preferred level of analysis and this choice shapes the research program, even determining what counts as evidence. This contribution revisits Marr's (1982) three levels of analysis (implementation, algorithmic, and computational) and evaluates the prospect of making progress at each individual level. After reviewing limitations of theorizing within a level, two strategies for integration across levels are considered. One is top–down in that it attempts to build a bridge from the computational to algorithmic level. Limitations of this approach include insufficient theoretical constraint at the computation level to provide a foundation for integration, and that people are suboptimal for reasons other than capacity limitations. Instead, an inside‐out approach is forwarded in which all three levels of analysis are integrated via the algorithmic level. This approach maximally leverages mutual data constraints at all levels. For example, algorithmic models can be used to interpret brain imaging data, and brain imaging data can be used to select among competing models. Examples of this approach to integration are provided. This merging of levels raises questions about the relevance of Marr's tripartite view.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/tops.12131

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All three disciplines converge on the algorithms and representations of the brain and mind, contributing complementary constraints.

    “All three disciplines thus converge on the algorithms and representations of the brain and mind, contributing complementary constraints116.”

    From Cognitive computational neuroscience (2018) · cites this paper as [116]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Love, B. C.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Love, Bradley C.
Venue
Topics in Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03-30
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
230-242
ISSN
  • 1756-8757 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-8765
OpenAlex
W2164383330
Cited by
82
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Topics in Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Computing and Networks
Keywords
Marr's levels of analysis, computational level, algorithmic level, implementation level, top-down integration, model selection, cognitive architecture
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Cognition, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Functional Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review