Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28392584›Full record

ArticleJournal of mathematical psychology2017

RELATING ACCUMULATOR MODEL PARAMETERS AND NEURAL DYNAMICS.

Braden A Purcell, Thomas J Palmeri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of mathematical psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. P3b correlates of inspection time.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Neural Substrates of the Drift-Diffusion Model in Brain Disorders.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2021
    Review
  9. Accumulators, Neurons, and Response Time.Trends in neurosciences · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Models of inhibitory control.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Review
  13. Approaches to Analysis in Model-based Cognitive Neuroscience.Journal of mathematical psychology · 2017
    Article
  14. Model-based cognitive neuroscience.Journal of mathematical psychology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Braden A PurcellNew York University.
Thomas J PalmeriVanderbilt University.

Funding

Shop Module CoreP30EY008126 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Kevin L Schey · 1989 to 2026
$19.6M
Training in Vision ResearchT32EY007135 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI GEOFFREY F WOODMAN · 1994 to 2026
$5.8M
Stochastic Models of Visual SearchR01EY021833 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LOGAN, GORDON DENNIS, PALMERI, THOMAS · 2011 to 2023
$3.3M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY008126NEI NIH HHS R01 EY021833NEI NIH HHS T32 EY007135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accumulator models explain decision-making as an accumulation of evidence to a response threshold. Specific model parameters are associated with specific model mechanisms, such as the time when accumulation begins, the average rate of evidence accumulation, and the threshold. These mechanisms determine both the within-trial dynamics of evidence accumulation and the predicted behavior. Cognitive modelers usually infer what mechanisms vary during decision-making by seeing what parameters vary when a model is fitted to observed behavior. The recent identification of neural activity with evidence accumulation suggests that it may be possible to directly infer what mechanisms vary from an analysis of how neural dynamics vary. However, evidence accumulation is often noisy, and noise complicates the relationship between accumulator dynamics and the underlying mechanisms leading to those dynamics. To understand what kinds of inferences can be made about decision-making mechanisms based on measures of neural dynamics, we measured simulated accumulator model dynamics while systematically varying model parameters. In some cases, decision- making mechanisms can be directly inferred from dynamics, allowing us to distinguish between models that make identical behavioral predictions. In other cases, however, different parameterized mechanisms produce surprisingly similar dynamics, limiting the inferences that can be made based on measuring dynamics alone. Analyzing neural dynamics can provide a powerful tool to resolve model mimicry at the behavioral level, but we caution against drawing inferences based solely on neural analyses. Instead, simultaneous modeling of behavior and neural dynamics provides the most powerful approach to understand decision-making and likely other aspects of cognition and perception.

Identifiers

PMID28392584
PMCPMC5381950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.