Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 23, 2025

Kinematic History of a Salient-recess Junction Explored through a Combined Approach of Field Data and Analog Sandbox Modeling
Published on: August 5, 2016
Modeling evidence accumulation decision processes using integral equations: Urgency-gating and collapsing boundaries
Philip L Smith1, Roger Ratcliff2
1Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne.
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).
More Related Videos
05:48The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
Published on: June 12, 2020
11:41Evaluation of an Exclusive Spur Dike U-Turn Design with Radar-Collected Data and Simulation
Published on: February 1, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Reason and Intuition
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...
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Algorithms for Numerical Problem Solving
In individual population analyses, different algorithms are employed, such as Cauchy's method, which uses a...
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...
Decision Making
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
Mechanistic Models: Overview of Compartment Models