ArticleJournal of mathematical psychology2016
Comparing fixed and collapsing boundary versions of the diffusion model.
Article in Journal of mathematical psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 95 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning Decouples Accuracy and Reaction Time for Rapid Decisions in a Transitive Inference Task.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Human decision-makers terminate evidence accumulation using flexible decision rules.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Lévy Versus Wiener: Assessing the Effects of Model Misspecification on Diffusion Model Parameters.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
- Parameter estimation of hyper-spherical diffusion models with a time-dependent threshold: An integral equation method.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- The Tweedledum and Tweedledee of dynamic decisions: Discriminating between diffusion decision and accumulator models.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Bayesian confidence in optimal decisions.Psychological review · 2024Article
- Attribute latencies causally shape intertemporal decisions.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Expressions for Bayesian confidence of drift diffusion observers in fluctuating stimuli tasks.Journal of mathematical psychology · 2023Article
- Evidence or Confidence: What Is Really Monitored during a Decision?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
- "Reliable organisms from unreliable components" revisited: the linear drift, linear infinitesimal variance model of decision making.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
- Article
- Stimulus-response congruency effects depend on quality of perceptual evidence: A diffusion model account.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Degenerate boundaries for multiple-alternative decisions.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Evidence integration and decision confidence are modulated by stimulus consistency.Nature human behaviour · 2022Article
- Modeling evidence accumulation decision processes using integral equations: Urgency-gating and collapsing boundaries.Psychological review · 2022Article
- Temporal order judgment of multisensory stimuli in rat and human.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Evidence and Urgency Related EEG Signals during Dynamic Decision-Making in Humans.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
- An Overcomplete Approach to Fitting Drift-Diffusion Decision Models to Trial-By-Trial Data.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2021Article
- Vision for the blind: visual psychophysics and blinded inference for decision models.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2020Review
- Confluence of Timing and Reward Biases in Perceptual Decision-Making Dynamics.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Optimality studies and studies of decision-making in monkeys have been used to support a model in which the decision boundaries used to evaluate evidence collapse over time. This article investigates whether a diffusion model with collapsing boundaries provides a better account of human data than a model with fixed boundaries. We compared the models using data from four new numerosity discrimination experiments and two previously published motion discrimination experiments. When model selection was based on BIC values, the fixed boundary model was preferred over the collapsing boundary model for all of the experiments. When model selection was carried out using a parametric bootstrap cross-fitting method (PBCM), which takes into account the flexibility of the alternative models and the ability of one model to account for data from another model, data from 5 of 6 experiments favored either fixed boundaries or boundaries with only negligible collapse. We found that the collapsing boundary model produces response times distributions with the same shape as those produced by the fixed boundary model and that its parameters were not well-identified and were difficult to recover from data. Furthermore, the estimated boundaries of the best-fitting collapsing boundary model were relatively flat and very similar to those of the fixed-boundary model. Overall, a diffusion model with decision boundaries that converge over time does not provide an improvement over the standard diffusion model for our tasks with human data.
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.