Literature DB >> 29035076

Internal and external sources of variability in perceptual decision-making.

Roger Ratcliff1, Chelsea Voskuilen1, Gail McKoon1.   

Abstract

It is important to identify sources of variability in processing to understand decision-making in perception and cognition. There is a distinction between internal and external variability in processing, and double-pass experiments have been used to estimate their relative contributions. In these and our experiments, exact perceptual stimuli are repeated later in testing, and agreement on the 2 trials is examined to see if it is greater than chance. In recent research in modeling decision processes, some models implement only (internal) variability in the decision process whereas others explicitly represent multiple sources of variability. We describe 5 perceptual double-pass experiments that show greater than chance agreement, which is inconsistent with models that assume internal variability alone. Estimates of total trial-to-trial variability in the evidence accumulation (drift) rate (the decision-relevant stimulus information) were estimated from fits of the standard diffusion decision-making model to the data. The double-pass procedure provided estimates of how much of this total variability was systematic and dependent on the stimulus. These results provide the first behavioral evidence independent of model fits for trial-to-trial variability in drift rate in tasks used in examining perceptual decision-making. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29035076      PMCID: PMC5773396          DOI: 10.1037/rev0000080

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Rev        ISSN: 0033-295X            Impact factor:   8.934


  57 in total

1.  A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on brightness discrimination.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Anjali Thapar; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2003-05

2.  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

Review 3.  The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.026

4.  Quality of evidence for perceptual decision making is indexed by trial-to-trial variability of the EEG.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Marios G Philiastides; Paul Sajda
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Visual signal detection. IV. Observer inconsistency.

Authors:  A E Burgess; B Colborne
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 2.129

6.  Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey.

Authors:  M N Shadlen; W T Newsome
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Rats and humans can optimally accumulate evidence for decision-making.

Authors:  Bingni W Brunton; Matthew M Botvinick; Carlos D Brody
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-04-05       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Temporal integration of olfactory perceptual evidence in human orbitofrontal cortex.

Authors:  Nicholas E Bowman; Konrad P Kording; Jay A Gottfried
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 17.173

9.  A neural implementation of Wald's sequential probability ratio test.

Authors:  Shinichiro Kira; Tianming Yang; Michael N Shadlen
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 17.173

10.  Human decision making based on variations in internal noise: an EEG study.

Authors:  Sygal Amitay; Jeanne Guiraud; Ediz Sohoglu; Oliver Zobay; Barrie A Edmonds; Yu-Xuan Zhang; David R Moore
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  10 in total

1.  Decision making on spatially continuous scales.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Modeling numerosity representation with an integrated diffusion model.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Modeling 2-alternative forced-choice tasks: Accounting for both magnitude and difference effects.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Chelsea Voskuilen; Andrei Teodorescu
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Modeling Conditional Dependence of Response Accuracy and Response Time with the Diffusion Item Response Theory Model.

Authors:  Inhan Kang; Paul De Boeck; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 2.500

5.  Modeling evidence accumulation decision processes using integral equations: Urgency-gating and collapsing boundaries.

Authors:  Philip L Smith; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 8.247

6.  Estimating systematic and random sources of variability in perceptual decision-making: A reply to Evans, Tillman, & Wagenmakers (2020).

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Philip L Smith
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 8.247

7.  Decision making in numeracy tasks with spatially continuous scales.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Variance misperception under skewed empirical noise statistics explains overconfidence in the visual periphery.

Authors:  Charles J Winter; Megan A K Peters
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  An initial 'snapshot' of sensory information biases the likelihood and speed of subsequent changes of mind.

Authors:  William Turner; Daniel Feuerriegel; Robert Hester; Stefan Bode
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Flexible categorization in perceptual decision making.

Authors:  Alex Roxin; Jaime de la Rocha; Genís Prat-Ortega; Klaus Wimmer
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 14.919

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.