A model of dynamic, within-trial conflict resolution for decision making
Emily R Weichart1, Brandon M Turner1, Per B Sederberg1
1Department of Psychology.
Abstract:
Growing evidence for moment-to-moment fluctuations in visual attention has led to questions about the impetus and time course of cognitive control. These questions are typically investigated with paradigms like the flanker task, which require participants to inhibit an automatic response before making a decision. Connectionist modeling work suggests that between-trial changes in attention result from fluctuations in conflict-as conflict occurs, attention needs to be upregulated to resolve it. Current sequential sampling models (SSMs) of within-trial effects, however, suggest that attention focuses on a goal-relevant target as a function of time. We propose that within-trial changes in cognitive control and attention are emergent properties of the dynamics of the decision itself. We tested our hypothesis by developing a set of SSMs, each making alternative assumptions about attention modulation and evidence accumulation mechanisms. Combining the SSM framework with likelihood-free Bayesian approximation methods allowed us to conduct quantified comparisons between subject-level fits. Models included either time- or control-based attention mechanisms, and either strongly- (via feedforward inhibition) or weakly correlated (via leak and lateral inhibition) evidence accumulation mechanisms. We fit all models to behavioral data collected in variants of the flanker task, one accompanied by EEG measures. Across three experiments, we found converging evidence that control-based attention processes in combination with evidence accumulation mechanisms governed by leak and lateral inhibition provided the best fits to behavioral data, and uniquely mapped onto observed decision-related signals in the brain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Related Concept Videos
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Frustration and Conflict: Approach-Approach, Approach-Avoidance
One common type of conflict is the Approach–Approach Conflict. In this case, a person faces two desirable...
Decision Making
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
Frustration and Conflict: Avoidance-Avoidance, Double-Approach Avoidance
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...
Reason and Intuition


