Comparing fixed and collapsing boundary versions of the diffusion model.

Optimality studies and studies of decision-making in monkeys have been used to support a model in which the decision boundaries used to evaluate evidence collapse over time. This article investigates whether a diffusion model with collapsing boundaries provides a better account of human data than a model with fixed boundaries. We compared the models using data from four new numerosity discrimination experiments and two previously published motion discrimination experiments. When model selection was based on BIC values, the fixed boundary model was preferred over the collapsing boundary model for all of the experiments. When model selection was carried out using a parametric bootstrap cross-fitting method (PBCM), which takes into account the flexibility of the alternative models and the ability of one model to account for data from another model, data from 5 of 6 experiments favored either fixed boundaries or boundaries with only negligible collapse. We found that the collapsing boundary model produces response times distributions with the same shape as those produced by the fixed boundary model and that its parameters were not well-identified and were difficult to recover from data. Furthermore, the estimated boundaries of the best-fitting collapsing boundary model were relatively flat and very similar to those of the fixed-boundary model. Overall, a diffusion model with decision boundaries that converge over time does not provide an improvement over the standard diffusion model for our tasks with human data.