Literature DB >> 34410765

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

Philip L Smith1, Roger Ratcliff2.   

Abstract

Diffusion models of evidence accumulation have successfully accounted for the distributions of response times and choice probabilities from many experimental tasks, but recently their assumption that evidence is accumulated at a constant rate to constant decision boundaries has been challenged. One model assumes that decision-makers seek to optimize their performance by using decision boundaries that collapse over time. Another model assumes that evidence does not accumulate and is represented by a stationary distribution that is gated by an urgency signal to make a response. We present explicit, integral-equation expressions for the first-passage time distributions of the urgency-gating and collapsing-bounds models and use them to identify conditions under which the models are equivalent. We combine these expressions with a dynamic model of stimulus encoding that allows the effects of perceptual and decisional integration to be distinguished. We compare the resulting models to the standard diffusion model with variability in drift rates on data from three experimental paradigms in which stimulus information was either constant or changed over time. The standard diffusion model was the best model for tasks with constant stimulus information; the models with time-varying urgency or decision bounds performed similarly to the standard diffusion model on tasks with changing stimulus information. We found little support for the claim that evidence does not accumulate and attribute the good performance of the time-varying models on changing-stimulus tasks to their increased flexibility and not to their ability to account for systematic experimental effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34410765      PMCID: PMC8857294          DOI: 10.1037/rev0000301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Rev        ISSN: 0033-295X            Impact factor:   8.247


  85 in total

Review 1.  Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions.

Authors:  Philip L Smith; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 13.837

2.  Robust averaging during perceptual judgment.

Authors:  Vincent de Gardelle; Christopher Summerfield
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-07-25       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Dynamic properties of vision. II. Theoretical relationships between flicker and flash thresholds.

Authors:  J A Roufs
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1972-02       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Model for visual luminance discrimination and flicker detection.

Authors:  G Sperling; M M Sondhi
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am       Date:  1968-08

5.  Evidence for an accumulator model of psychophysical discrimination.

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

6.  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

7.  Perceptual discrimination in static and dynamic noise: the temporal relation between perceptual encoding and decision making.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Philip L Smith
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2010-02

8.  Neural control of voluntary movement initiation.

Authors:  D P Hanes; J D Schall
Journal:  Science       Date:  1996-10-18       Impact factor: 47.728

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.  The Quality of Response Time Data Inference: A Blinded, Collaborative Assessment of the Validity of Cognitive Models.

Authors:  Gilles Dutilh; Jeffrey Annis; Scott D Brown; Peter Cassey; Nathan J Evans; Raoul P P P Grasman; Guy E Hawkins; Andrew Heathcote; William R Holmes; Angelos-Miltiadis Krypotos; Colin N Kupitz; Fábio P Leite; Veronika Lerche; Yi-Shin Lin; Gordon D Logan; Thomas J Palmeri; Jeffrey J Starns; Jennifer S Trueblood; Leendert van Maanen; Don van Ravenzwaaij; Joachim Vandekerckhove; Ingmar Visser; Andreas Voss; Corey N White; Thomas V Wiecki; Jörg Rieskamp; Chris Donkin
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-08
View more
  1 in total

1.  Humans utilize sensory evidence of others' intended action to make online decisions.

Authors:  Rakshith Lokesh; Seth Sullivan; Jan A Calalo; Adam Roth; Brenden Swanik; Michael J Carter; Joshua G A Cashaback
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 4.996

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.