Support for the Time-Varying Drift Rate Model of Perceptual Discrimination in Dynamic and Static Noise Using Bayesian Model-Fitting Methodology

Overview

Journal Entropy (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Date 2024 Aug 29

PMID 39202112

Authors

Jordan Deakin

Andrew Schofield

Dietmar Heinke

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The drift-diffusion model (DDM) is a common approach to understanding human decision making. It considers decision making as accumulation of evidence about visual stimuli until sufficient evidence is reached to make a decision (decision boundary). Recently, Smith and colleagues proposed an extension of DDM, the time-varying DDM (TV-DDM). Here, the standard simplification that evidence accumulation operates on a fully formed representation of perceptual information is replaced with a perceptual integration stage modulating evidence accumulation. They suggested that this model particularly captures decision making regarding stimuli with dynamic noise. We tested this new model in two studies by using Bayesian parameter estimation and model comparison with marginal likelihoods. The first study replicated Smith and colleagues' findings by utilizing the classical random-dot kinomatogram (RDK) task, which requires judging the motion direction of randomly moving dots (motion discrimination task). In the second study, we used a novel type of stimulus designed to be like RDKs but with randomized hue of stationary dots (color discrimination task). This study also found TV-DDM to be superior, suggesting that perceptual integration is also relevant for static noise possibly where integration over space is required. We also found support for within-trial changes in decision boundaries ("collapsing boundaries"). Interestingly, and in contrast to most studies, the boundaries increased with increasing task difficulty (amount of noise). Future studies will need to test this finding in a formal model.

References

Dutilh G, Annis J, Brown S, Cassey P, Evans N, Grasman R . The Quality of Response Time Data Inference: A Blinded, Collaborative Assessment of the Validity of Cognitive Models. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018; 26(4):1051-1069. PMC: 6449220. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1417-2. View

Huang J, Su Z, Zhou X . Revisiting the color-motion asynchrony. J Vis. 2023; 23(1):6. PMC: 9838589. DOI: 10.1167/jov.23.1.6. View

Mulder M, Wagenmakers E, Ratcliff R, Boekel W, Forstmann B . Bias in the brain: a diffusion model analysis of prior probability and potential payoff. J Neurosci. 2012; 32(7):2335-43. PMC: 6621823. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4156-11.2012. View

Evans N, Hawkins G, Brown S . The role of passing time in decision-making. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2019; 46(2):316-326. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000725. View

Donkin C, Brown S, Heathcote A, Wagenmakers E . Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: different models but the same conclusions about psychological processes?. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011; 18(1):61-9. PMC: 3042112. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-010-0022-4. View

Ditterich J . Stochastic models of decisions about motion direction: behavior and physiology. Neural Netw. 2006; 19(8):981-1012. DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2006.05.042. View

Arnold N, Broder A, Bayen U . Empirical validation of the diffusion model for recognition memory and a comparison of parameter-estimation methods. Psychol Res. 2014; 79(5):882-98. PMC: 4534506. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-014-0608-y. View

Rae B, Heathcote A, Donkin C, Averell L, Brown S . The hare and the tortoise: emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014; 40(5):1226-43. DOI: 10.1037/a0036801. View

Friston K . Learning and inference in the brain. Neural Netw. 2003; 16(9):1325-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2003.06.005. View

10.

Kelly S, OConnell R . Internal and external influences on the rate of sensory evidence accumulation in the human brain. J Neurosci. 2013; 33(50):19434-41. PMC: 6618757. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3355-13.2013. View

11.

Ratcliff R, Smith P . Perceptual discrimination in static and dynamic noise: the temporal relation between perceptual encoding and decision making. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010; 139(1):70-94. PMC: 2854493. DOI: 10.1037/a0018128. View

12.

Turner B, Sederberg P . A generalized, likelihood-free method for posterior estimation. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 21(2):227-50. PMC: 4143986. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0530-0. View

13.

Strauss S, Woodgate P, Sami S, Heinke D . Choice reaching with a LEGO arm robot (CoRLEGO): The motor system guides visual attention to movement-relevant information. Neural Netw. 2015; 72:3-12. PMC: 4681879. DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2015.10.005. View

14.

Carland M, Thura D, Cisek P . The urgency-gating model can explain the effects of early evidence. Psychon Bull Rev. 2015; 22(6):1830-8. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0851-2. View

15.

Malhotra G, Leslie D, Ludwig C, Bogacz R . Time-varying decision boundaries: insights from optimality analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017; 25(3):971-996. PMC: 5990589. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1340-6. View

16.

Forstmann B, Ratcliff R, Wagenmakers E . Sequential Sampling Models in Cognitive Neuroscience: Advantages, Applications, and Extensions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015; 67:641-66. PMC: 5112760. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645. View

17.

Li Q, Joo S, Yeatman J, Reinecke K . Controlling for Participants' Viewing Distance in Large-Scale, Psychophysical Online Experiments Using a Virtual Chinrest. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):904. PMC: 6976612. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-57204-1. View

18.

Ratcliff R, McKoon G . Reexamining the effects of speed-accuracy instructions with a diffusion-model-based analysis. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2023; 49(11):1732-1751. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0001285. View

19.

Watamaniuk S, Sekuler R . Temporal and spatial integration in dynamic random-dot stimuli. Vision Res. 1992; 32(12):2341-7. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(92)90097-3. View

20.

Lin Y, Heinke D, Humphreys G . Modeling visual search using three-parameter probability functions in a hierarchical Bayesian framework. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015; 77(3):985-1010. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0825-x. View