» Articles » PMID: 19746300

Do Humans Produce the Speed-accuracy Trade-off That Maximizes Reward Rate?

Overview
Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology
Date 2009 Sep 12
PMID 19746300
Citations 66
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In this paper we investigate trade-offs between speed and accuracy that are produced by humans when confronted with a sequence of choices between two alternatives. We assume that the choice process is described by the drift diffusion model, in which the speed-accuracy trade-off is primarily controlled by the value of the decision threshold. We test the hypothesis that participants choose the decision threshold that maximizes reward rate, defined as an average number of rewards per unit of time. In particular, we test four predictions derived on the basis of this hypothesis in two behavioural experiments. The data from all participants of our experiments provide support only for some of the predictions, and on average the participants are slower and more accurate than predicted by reward rate maximization. However, when we limit our analysis to subgroups of 30-50% of participants who earned the highest overall rewards, all the predictions are satisfied by the data. This suggests that a substantial subset of participants do select decision thresholds that maximize reward rate. We also discuss possible reasons why the remaining participants select thresholds higher than optimal, including the possibility that participants optimize a combination of reward rate and accuracy or that they compensate for the influence of timing uncertainty, or both.

Citing Articles

The Cost of Regulating Effort: Reward and Difficulty Cues With Longer Prediction Horizons Have a Stronger Impact on Performance.

Kukkonen N, Braem S, Allaert J, Eayrs J, Prutean N, Steendam S J Cogn. 2025; 8(1):9.

PMID: 39803179 PMC: 11720864. DOI: 10.5334/joc.415.


Integrated Ising Model with global inhibition for decision making.

Tapinova O, Finkelman T, Reitich-Stolero T, Paz R, Tal A, Gov N bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39605483 PMC: 11601415. DOI: 10.1101/2024.11.18.624088.


Reinforcement learning of adaptive control strategies.

Held L, Vermeylen L, Dignath D, Notebaert W, Krebs R, Braem S Commun Psychol. 2024; 2(1):8.

PMID: 39242891 PMC: 11332247. DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00055-y.


Efficiency in redundancy.

Gronau Q, Moran R, Eidels A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):17109.

PMID: 39048689 PMC: 11269681. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-68127-x.


Moral trade-offs reveal foundational representations that predict unique variance in political attitudes.

Ahluwalia-McMeddes A, Moore A, Marr C, Kunders Z Br J Soc Psychol. 2024; 64(1):e12781.

PMID: 38979983 PMC: 11588039. DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12781.


References
1.
Simen P, Contreras D, Buck C, Hu P, Holmes P, Cohen J . Reward rate optimization in two-alternative decision making: empirical tests of theoretical predictions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009; 35(6):1865-97. PMC: 2791916. DOI: 10.1037/a0016926. View

2.
Franks N, Dornhaus A, Fitzsimmons J, Stevens M . Speed versus accuracy in collective decision making. Proc Biol Sci. 2003; 270(1532):2457-63. PMC: 1691524. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2527. View

3.
Erev I . Signal detection by human observers: a cutoff reinforcement learning model of categorization decisions under uncertainty. Psychol Rev. 1998; 105(2):280-98. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.2.280. View

4.
Ratcliff R, Tuerlinckx F . Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002; 9(3):438-81. PMC: 2474747. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196302. View

5.
Gold J, Shadlen M . Banburismus and the brain: decoding the relationship between sensory stimuli, decisions, and reward. Neuron. 2002; 36(2):299-308. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00971-6. View