Literature DB >> 29501775

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

Roger Ratcliff1, Chelsea Voskuilen2, Andrei Teodorescu3.   

Abstract

We present a model-based analysis of two-alternative forced-choice tasks in which two stimuli are presented side by side and subjects must make a comparative judgment (e.g., which stimulus is brighter). Stimuli can vary on two dimensions, the difference in strength of the two stimuli and the magnitude of each stimulus. Differences between the two stimuli produce typical RT and accuracy effects (i.e., subjects respond more quickly and more accurately when there is a larger difference between the two). However, the overall magnitude of the pair of stimuli also affects RT and accuracy. In the more common two-choice task, a single stimulus is presented and the stimulus varies on only one dimension. In this two-stimulus task, if the standard diffusion decision model is fit to the data with only drift rate (evidence accumulation rate) differing among conditions, the model cannot fit the data. However, if either of one of two variability parameters is allowed to change with stimulus magnitude, the model can fit the data. This results in two models that are extremely constrained with about one tenth of the number of parameters than there are data points while at the same time the models account for accuracy and correct and error RT distributions. While both of these versions of the diffusion model can account for the observed data, the model that allows across-trial variability in drift to vary might be preferred for theoretical reasons. The diffusion model fits are compared to the leaky competing accumulator model which did not perform as well.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2AFC task; Diffusion model; LCA; Response time models

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29501775      PMCID: PMC5911219          DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  34 in total

1.  Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Francis Tuerlinckx
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-09

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.  Scale (in)variance in a unified diffusion model of decision making and timing.

Authors:  Patrick Simen; Ksenia Vlasov; Samantha Papadakis
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Evidence for time-variant decision making.

Authors:  Jochen Ditterich
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.386

Review 5.  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

6.  Perceptual decisions between multiple directions of visual motion.

Authors:  Mamiko Niwa; Jochen Ditterich
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-04-23       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Validating the unequal-variance assumption in recognition memory using response time distributions instead of ROC functions: A diffusion model analysis.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.059

8.  Modeling numerosity representation with an integrated diffusion model.

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

9.  Parameter variability and distributional assumptions in the diffusion model.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 8.934

10.  Absolutely relative or relatively absolute: violations of value invariance in human decision making.

Authors:  Andrei R Teodorescu; Rani Moran; Marius Usher
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-02
View more
  10 in total

1.  Modeling the interaction of numerosity and perceptual variables with the diffusion model.

Authors:  Inhan Kang; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Examining aging and numerosity using an integrated diffusion model.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  A new model of decision processing in instrumental learning tasks.

Authors:  Steven Miletić; Russell J Boag; Anne C Trutti; Niek Stevenson; Birte U Forstmann; Andrew Heathcote
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 8.140

7.  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

8.  Neural Signature of Buying Decisions in Real-World Online Shopping Scenarios - An Exploratory Electroencephalography Study Series.

Authors:  Ninja K Horr; Keren Han; Bijan Mousavi; Ruihong Tang
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Magnitude-sensitive reaction times reveal non-linear time costs in multi-alternative decision-making.

Authors:  James A R Marshall; Andreagiovanni Reina; Célia Hay; Audrey Dussutour; Angelo Pirrone
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 4.779

10.  High-value decisions are fast and accurate, inconsistent with diminishing value sensitivity.

Authors:  Blair R K Shevlin; Stephanie M Smith; Jan Hausfeld; Ian Krajbich
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 12.779

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.