ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2018
Testing the validity of conflict drift-diffusion models for use in estimating cognitive processes: A parameter-recovery study.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategy and processing speed eclipse individual differences in control ability in conflict tasks.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2022Pooled it
- Conflict resolution in the Eriksen flanker task: Similarities and differences to the Simon task.PloS one · 2019Trial
- A two-phase diffusion process account of cross-location conflict processing during mental imagery.iScience · 2026Article
- Age and Social Observation Effects on Theta Synchrony and Its Role in Adolescent Post-Error Control: A Computational Approach.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Ten years Diffusion Model for Conflict (DMC) tasks: Theoretical foundations, applications, practical recommendations, and open challenges.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Joint Cognitive Models Reveal Sources of Robust Individual Differences in Conflict Processing.Computational brain & behavior · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Neither measurement error nor speed-accuracy trade-offs explain the difficulty of establishing attentional control as a psychometric construct: Evidence from a latent-variable analysis using diffusion modeling.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Exploring the role of post-error processing in social anxiety across age.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2025Article
- Individual differences in speed-accuracy trade-off influence social decision-making in dyads.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Parameter identifiability in evidence-accumulation models: The effect of error rates on the diffusion decision model and the linear ballistic accumulator.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Dynamic modulation of spatial selection: Online and anticipatory adjustments in the flanker task.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- A comment on the Revised Diffusion Model for Conflict tasks (RDMC).Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Non-decision time: The Higgs Boson of decision.Psychological review · 2025Article
- Cautionary response strategy and impairment of post-conflict response selection underlie age-related differences in a location-based Stroop task.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Intrinsic functional networks for distinct sources of error in visual working memory.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Anterior cingulate cortex lesions impair multiple facets of task engagement not mediated by dorsomedial striatum neuron firing.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Statistical learning shapes pain perception and prediction independently of external cues.eLife · 2024Article
- The neutral condition in conflict tasks: On the violation of the midpoint assumption in reaction time trends.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Researchers and clinicians are interested in estimating individual differences in the ability to process conflicting information. Conflict processing is typically assessed by comparing behavioral measures like RTs or error rates from conflict tasks. However, these measures are hard to interpret because they can be influenced by additional processes like response caution or bias. This limitation can be circumvented by employing cognitive models to decompose behavioral data into components of underlying decision processes, providing better specificity for investigating individual differences. A new class of drift-diffusion models has been developed for conflict tasks, presenting a potential tool to improve analysis of individual differences in conflict processing. However, measures from these models have not been validated for use in experiments with limited data collection. The present study assessed the validity of these models with a parameter-recovery study to determine whether and under what circumstances the models provide valid measures of cognitive processing. Three models were tested: the dual-stage two-phase model (Hübner, Steinhauser, & Lehle, Psychological Review, 117(3), 759-784, 2010), the shrinking spotlight model (White, Ratcliff, & Starns, Cognitive Psychology, 63(4), 210-238, 2011), and the diffusion model for conflict tasks (Ulrich, Schröter, Leuthold, & Birngruber, Cogntive Psychology, 78, 148-174, 2015). The validity of the model parameters was assessed using different methods of fitting the data and different numbers of trials. The results show that each model has limitations in recovering valid parameters, but they can be mitigated by adding constraints to the model. Practical recommendations are provided for when and how each model can be used to analyze data and provide measures of processing in conflict tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.