Time-varying Boundaries for Diffusion Models of Decision Making and Response Time

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2014 Dec 25

PMID 25538642

Citations 22

Authors

Shunan Zhang

Michael D Lee

Joachim Vandekerckhove

Gunter Maris

Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Diffusion models are widely-used and successful accounts of the time course of two-choice decision making. Most diffusion models assume constant boundaries, which are the threshold levels of evidence that must be sampled from a stimulus to reach a decision. We summarize theoretical results from statistics that relate distributions of decisions and response times to diffusion models with time-varying boundaries. We then develop a computational method for finding time-varying boundaries from empirical data, and apply our new method to two problems. The first problem involves finding the time-varying boundaries that make diffusion models equivalent to the alternative sequential sampling class of accumulator models. The second problem involves finding the time-varying boundaries, at the individual level, that best fit empirical data for perceptual stimuli that provide equal evidence for both decision alternatives. We discuss the theoretical and modeling implications of using time-varying boundaries in diffusion models, as well as the limitations and potential of our approach to their inference.

Citing Articles

Are there jumps in evidence accumulation, and what, if anything, do they reflect psychologically? An analysis of Lévy Flights models of decision-making.

Rasanan A, Rad J, Sewell D Psychon Bull Rev. 2023; 31(1):32-48.

PMID: 37528276 PMC: 11420318. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-023-02284-4.

Environmental dynamics shape perceptual decision bias.

Charlton J, Mlynarski W, Bai Y, Hermundstad A, Goris R PLoS Comput Biol. 2023; 19(6):e1011104.

PMID: 37289753 PMC: 10249884. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011104.

The importance of urgency in decision making based on dynamic information.

Ferrucci L, Genovesio A, Marcos E PLoS Comput Biol. 2021; 17(10):e1009455.

PMID: 34606494 PMC: 8516247. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009455.

An Overcomplete Approach to Fitting Drift-Diffusion Decision Models to Trial-By-Trial Data.

Feltgen Q, Daunizeau J Front Artif Intell. 2021; 4:531316.

PMID: 33898982 PMC: 8064018. DOI: 10.3389/frai.2021.531316.

Qualitative speed-accuracy tradeoff effects that cannot be explained by the diffusion model under the selective influence assumption.

Rafiei F, Rahnev D Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):45.

PMID: 33420181 PMC: 7794484. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79765-2.

References

Ratcliff R, McKoon G . The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput. 2007; 20(4):873-922. PMC: 2474742. DOI: 10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420. View

Ratcliff R, Thapar A, McKoon G . A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on brightness discrimination. Percept Psychophys. 2003; 65(4):523-35. PMC: 1360154. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194580. View

Ratcliff R, Smith P . A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychol Rev. 2004; 111(2):333-67. PMC: 1440925. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333. View

Ratcliff R . Parameter variability and distributional assumptions in the diffusion model. Psychol Rev. 2012; 120(1):281-92. PMC: 3975928. DOI: 10.1037/a0030775. View

CLAY J, Goel N . Diffusion models for firing of a neuron with varying threshold. J Theor Biol. 1973; 39(3):633-44. DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(73)90074-x. View

Ratcliff R, Thapar A, Gomez P, McKoon G . A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging in the lexical-decision task. Psychol Aging. 2004; 19(2):278-89. PMC: 1360155. DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.19.2.278. View

Drugowitsch J, Moreno-Bote R, Churchland A, Shadlen M, Pouget A . The cost of accumulating evidence in perceptual decision making. J Neurosci. 2012; 32(11):3612-28. PMC: 3329788. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4010-11.2012. View

Ditterich J . Evidence for time-variant decision making. Eur J Neurosci. 2007; 24(12):3628-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05221.x. View

Nosofsky R, Palmeri T . An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychol Rev. 1997; 104(2):266-300. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.266. View

10.

Ratcliff R . Theoretical interpretations of the speed and accuracy of positive and negative responses. Psychol Rev. 1985; 92(2):212-25. View

11.

Cisek P, Puskas G, El-Murr S . Decisions in changing conditions: the urgency-gating model. J Neurosci. 2009; 29(37):11560-71. PMC: 6665752. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1844-09.2009. View

12.

Lee M, Cummins T . Evidence accumulation in decision making: unifying the "take the best" and the "rational" models. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004; 11(2):343-52. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196581. View

13.

Usher M, McClelland J . The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(3):550-92. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.550. View

14.

Thura D, Beauregard-Racine J, Fradet C, Cisek P . Decision making by urgency gating: theory and experimental support. J Neurophysiol. 2012; 108(11):2912-30. DOI: 10.1152/jn.01071.2011. View

15.

Ratcliff R, Van Zandt T, McKoon G . Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. Psychol Rev. 1999; 106(2):261-300. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.106.2.261. View

16.

Bogacz R, Brown E, Moehlis J, Holmes P, Cohen J . The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychol Rev. 2006; 113(4):700-65. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.700. View

17.

Vickers D . Evidence for an accumulator model of psychophysical discrimination. Ergonomics. 1970; 13(1):37-58. DOI: 10.1080/00140137008931117. View

18.

Diederich . Dynamic Stochastic Models for Decision Making under Time Constraints. J Math Psychol. 1997; 41(3):260-74. DOI: 10.1006/jmps.1997.1167. View

19.

Jones M, Dzhafarov E . Unfalsifiability and mutual translatability of major modeling schemes for choice reaction time. Psychol Rev. 2013; 121(1):1-32. DOI: 10.1037/a0034190. View

20.

Brown S, Heathcote A . A ballistic model of choice response time. Psychol Rev. 2005; 112(1):117-28. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.117. View