Literature DB >> 33420181

Qualitative speed-accuracy tradeoff effects that cannot be explained by the diffusion model under the selective influence assumption.

Farshad Rafiei1, Dobromir Rahnev2.   

Abstract

It is often thought that the diffusion model explains all effects related to the speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) but this has previously been examined with only a few SAT conditions or only a few subjects. Here we collected data from 20 subjects who performed a perceptual discrimination task with five different difficulty levels and five different SAT conditions (5000 trials/subject). We found that the five SAT conditions produced robustly U-shaped curves for (i) the difference between error and correct response times (RTs), (ii) the ratio of the standard deviation and mean of the RT distributions, and (iii) the skewness of the RT distributions. Critically, the diffusion model where only drift rate varies with contrast and only boundary varies with SAT could not account for any of the three U-shaped curves. Further, allowing all parameters to vary across conditions revealed that both the SAT and difficulty manipulations resulted in substantial modulations in every model parameter, while still providing imperfect fits to the data. These findings demonstrate that the diffusion model cannot fully explain the effects of SAT and establishes three robust but challenging effects that models of SAT should account for.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33420181      PMCID: PMC7794484          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79765-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  40 in total

1.  Speed versus accuracy in collective decision making.

Authors:  Nigel R Franks; Anna Dornhaus; Jon P Fitzsimmons; Martin Stevens
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2003-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition.

Authors:  Mark A Pitt; In Jae Myung; Shaobo Zhang
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Fast-dm: a free program for efficient diffusion model analysis.

Authors:  Andreas Voss; Jochen Voss
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-11

4.  A Diffusion Model Account of Criterion Shifts in the Lexical Decision Task.

Authors:  Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Roger Ratcliff; Pablo Gomez; Gail McKoon
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.059

5.  Strength and weight: The determinants of choice and confidence.

Authors:  Peter D Kvam; Timothy J Pleskac
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2016-04-16

Review 6.  Sequential Sampling Models in Cognitive Neuroscience: Advantages, Applications, and Extensions.

Authors:  B U Forstmann; R Ratcliff; E-J Wagenmakers
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 24.137

7.  Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: different models but the same conclusions about psychological processes?

Authors:  Chris Donkin; Scott Brown; Andrew Heathcote; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-02

8.  Reward rate optimization in two-alternative decision making: empirical tests of theoretical predictions.

Authors:  Patrick Simen; David Contreras; Cara Buck; Peter Hu; Philip Holmes; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the Drift-Diffusion Model in Python.

Authors:  Thomas V Wiecki; Imri Sofer; Michael J Frank
Journal:  Front Neuroinform       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 4.081

Review 10.  The speed-accuracy tradeoff: history, physiology, methodology, and behavior.

Authors:  Richard P Heitz
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.677

View more
  2 in total

1.  An adaptive paradigm for detecting the individual duration of the preparatory period in the choice reaction time task.

Authors:  Gurgen Soghoyan; Vladislav Aksiotis; Anna Rusinova; Andriy Myachykov; Alexey Tumyalis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Dynamic influences on static measures of metacognition.

Authors:  Kobe Desender; Luc Vermeylen; Tom Verguts
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 17.694

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.