Literature DB >> 18574521

Evaluating methods for approximating stochastic differential equations.

Scott D Brown1, Roger Ratcliff, Philip L Smith.   

Abstract

Models of decision making and response time (RT) are often formulated using stochastic differential equations (SDEs). Researchers often investigate these models using a simple Monte Carlo method based on Euler's method for solving ordinary differential equations. The accuracy of Euler's method is investigated and compared to the performance of more complex simulation methods. The more complex methods for solving SDEs yielded no improvement in accuracy over the Euler method. However, the matrix method proposed by Diederich and Busemeyer (2003) yielded significant improvements. The accuracy of all methods depended critically on the size of the approximating time step. The large (∼10 ms) step sizes often used by psychological researchers resulted in large and systematic errors in evaluating RT distributions.

Entities:  

Year:  2006        PMID: 18574521      PMCID: PMC2435510          DOI: 10.1016/j.jmp.2006.03.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Math Psychol        ISSN: 0022-2496            Impact factor:   2.223


  21 in total

1.  Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time.

Authors:  R Ratcliff; T Van Zandt; G McKoon
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  The influence of urgency on decision time.

Authors:  B A Reddi; R H Carpenter
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Attentional modulation of behavioral performance and neuronal responses in middle temporal and ventral intraparietal areas of macaque monkey.

Authors:  Erik P Cook; John H R Maunsell
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-03-01       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model.

Authors:  M Usher; J L McClelland
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Search efficiency but not response interference affects visual selection in frontal eye field.

Authors:  T Sato; A Murthy; K G Thompson; J D Schall
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 17.173

6.  Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli.

Authors:  J I. Gold; M N. Shadlen
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 7.  The neurobiology of visual-saccadic decision making.

Authors:  Paul W Glimcher
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 12.449

8.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Philip L Smith
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  A computational analysis of the relationship between neuronal and behavioral responses to visual motion.

Authors:  M N Shadlen; K H Britten; W T Newsome; J A Movshon
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1996-02-15       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Evidence for an accumulator model of psychophysical discrimination.

Authors:  D Vickers
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1970-01       Impact factor: 2.778

View more
  17 in total

1.  Aging and confidence judgments in item recognition.

Authors:  Chelsea Voskuilen; Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Dual diffusion model for single-cell recording data from the superior colliculus in a brightness-discrimination task.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Yukako T Hasegawa; Ryohei P Hasegawa; Philip L Smith; Mark A Segraves
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Does response modality influence conflict? Modelling vocal and manual response Stroop interference.

Authors:  Alex Fennell; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Modeling confidence judgments, response times, and multiple choices in decision making: recognition memory and motion discrimination.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Jeffrey J Starns
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Unconscious information changes decision accuracy but not confidence.

Authors:  Alexandra Vlassova; Chris Donkin; Joel Pearson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-10-27       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Revisiting the evidence for collapsing boundaries and urgency signals in perceptual decision-making.

Authors:  Guy E Hawkins; Birte U Forstmann; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Roger Ratcliff; Scott D Brown
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Modeling confidence and response time in associative recognition.

Authors:  Chelsea Voskuilen; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 3.059

8.  How attention influences perceptual decision making: Single-trial EEG correlates of drift-diffusion model parameters.

Authors:  Michael D Nunez; Joachim Vandekerckhove; Ramesh Srinivasan
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 2.223

9.  A new framework for modeling decisions about changing information: The Piecewise Linear Ballistic Accumulator model.

Authors:  William R Holmes; Jennifer S Trueblood; Andrew Heathcote
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Jeffrey J Starns
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.934

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.