Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Modeling response signal and response time data.

Roger Ratcliff1

  • 1Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. ratcliff.22@osu.edu

Cognitive Psychology
|August 8, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The interplay between selective attention and summary statistics.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2025
Same author

A selective sampling account of forming numerosity representations.

Psychological review·2025
Same author

Using diffusion models for symbolic numeracy tasks to examine aging effects.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2024
Same author

Beyond discrete-choice options.

Trends in cognitive sciences·2024
Same author

Parsing memory and nonmemory contributions to age-related declines in mnemonic discrimination performance: a hierarchical Bayesian diffusion decision modeling approach.

Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)·2023
Same author

Reexamining the effects of speed-accuracy instructions with a diffusion-model-based analysis.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2023
Same journal

Sublexical semantic decoding during incidental novel word learning in natural Chinese reading.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

Seeing, hearing, and feeling causation.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

Separating decision and motor contributions to behavioral biases induced by manipulating stimulus probability.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

Congruency drives "conflict adaptation" independent of conflict: Converging evidence from behavior and computational modeling.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

Corrigendum to "Network analyses identify critical factors for facilitating future-oriented decision-making" [Cogn. Psychol. 165 (2026) 101815].

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

The time course of local coherence effects in German: Evidence from self-paced reading times and event-related potentials.

Cognitive psychology·2026
See all related articles

The diffusion model and leaky competing accumulator model were compared using response time data. The diffusion model provided a better fit, suggesting its utility in understanding decision-making processes.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Computational Neuroscience
  • Decision Making

Background:

  • Understanding the cognitive mechanisms underlying decision-making is crucial in psychology and neuroscience.
  • The diffusion model and leaky competing accumulator (LCA) model are prominent computational frameworks for modeling choice response times.
  • Previous research has primarily evaluated these models independently or using limited experimental paradigms.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To rigorously compare the empirical adequacy of the diffusion model and the LCA model.
  • To evaluate model performance across two distinct response time procedures: standard and response signal.
  • To investigate model fit under assumptions of mixed decision processes in the response signal procedure.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Collected two-choice response time data from human participants using standard and response signal procedures.
  • Simultaneously fitted variants of the diffusion model and the LCA model to data from both procedures.
  • Incorporated assumptions of pre-terminated and ongoing decision processes for the response signal procedure.

    • Main Results:

    • Both variants of the diffusion model demonstrated a good fit to the collected data.
    • The diffusion model variants exhibited superior fit compared to the LCA model variants.
    • Numerical differences in goodness-of-fit were not substantial enough for definitive model selection.

    Conclusions:

    • The diffusion model appears to be a more effective framework for capturing decision-making dynamics across different experimental contexts.
    • The findings support the application of the diffusion model in understanding response time data, particularly when considering mixed decision processes.
    • Further research may be needed to refine model parameters and explore alternative computational architectures for decision making.