Adding a Speed-accuracy Trade-off to Discrete-state Models: A Comment on Heck and Erdfelder (2016)

Overview

Journal Psychon Bull Rev

Specialty Psychology

Date 2018 Mar 14

PMID 29532263

Citations 1

Authors

Jeffrey J Starns

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Heck and Erdfelder (2016) developed a model that extends discrete-state multinomial processing tree models to response time (RT) data. Their model is an important advance, but it does not have a mechanism to produce the speed-accuracy trade-off, the bedrock empirical observation that rushed decisions are less accurate. I present a similar model, the "discrete-race" model, with a simple mechanism for the speed-accuracy trade-off. In the model, information that supports detection of the stimulus type is available for some proportion of items and unavailable for others. Both the amount of time needed for detection to succeed and the amount of time that the decision maker waits before guessing are variable from trial to trial. Responses are based on detection when it is available and has a finishing time before the guess time for that trial. In other words, the decision maker sometimes loses opportunities to respond correctly on the basis of detection by first making a guess. These lost opportunities are more common when the guess-time distribution tends to have low wait times, which decreases accuracy. I report simulations showing that the model can accurately recover parameter values and is strongly constrained by the speed-accuracy trade-offs across conditions with different levels of response caution.

Citing Articles

Adding a speed-accuracy trade-off to discrete-state models: A comment on Heck and Erdfelder (2016).

Starns J Psychon Bull Rev. 2018; 25(6):2406-2416.

PMID: 29532263 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1456-3.

References

Criss A . Differentiation and response bias in episodic memory: evidence from reaction time distributions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010; 36(2):484-99. DOI: 10.1037/a0018435. View

Ratcliff R, Starns J . Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory. Psychol Rev. 2009; 116(1):59-83. PMC: 2693899. DOI: 10.1037/a0014086. View

Province J, Rouder J . Evidence for discrete-state processing in recognition memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(36):14357-62. PMC: 3437893. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1103880109. View

Donkin C, Nosofsky R, Gold J, Shiffrin R . Discrete-slots models of visual working-memory response times. Psychol Rev. 2013; 120(4):873-902. PMC: 4036228. DOI: 10.1037/a0034247. View

Kellen D, Klauer K, Broder A . Recognition memory models and binary-response ROCs: a comparison by minimum description length. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 20(4):693-719. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0407-2. View

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

Heck D, Erdfelder E . Linking process and measurement models of recognition-based decisions. Psychol Rev. 2017; 124(4):442-471. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000063. View

Smith P, Van Zandt T . Time-dependent Poisson counter models of response latency in simple judgment. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2000; 53 ( Pt 2):293-315. DOI: 10.1348/000711000159349. View

Batchelder W, Riefer D . Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002; 6(1):57-86. DOI: 10.3758/bf03210812. View

10.

Brainerd C, Gomes C, Moran R . The two recollections. Psychol Rev. 2014; 121(4):563-99. DOI: 10.1037/a0037668. View

11.

Hu X . Extending General Processing Tree Models to Analyze Reaction Time Experiments. J Math Psychol. 2001; 45(4):603-634. DOI: 10.1006/jmps.2000.1340. View

12.

Kellen D, Singmann H, Vogt J, Klauer K . Further evidence for discrete-state mediation in recognition memory. Exp Psychol. 2014; 62(1):40-53. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000272. View

13.

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

14.

Starns J, Ratcliff R, McKoon G . Evaluating the unequal-variance and dual-process explanations of zROC slopes with response time data and the diffusion model. Cogn Psychol. 2011; 64(1-2):1-34. PMC: 3257827. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.10.002. View

15.

Snodgrass J, Corwin J . Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988; 117(1):34-50. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.117.1.34. View

16.

Brown S, Heathcote A . The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation. Cogn Psychol. 2008; 57(3):153-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002. View

17.

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

18.

Heck D, Erdfelder E . Extending multinomial processing tree models to measure the relative speed of cognitive processes. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016; 23(5):1440-1465. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1025-6. View

19.

Starns J, Ratcliff R, White C . Diffusion model drift rates can be influenced by decision processes: an analysis of the strength-based mirror effect. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012; 38(5):1137-51. PMC: 3514445. DOI: 10.1037/a0028151. View

20.

Starns J . Adding a speed-accuracy trade-off to discrete-state models: A comment on Heck and Erdfelder (2016). Psychon Bull Rev. 2018; 25(6):2406-2416. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1456-3. View