ArticleCognitive psychology2018
Modeling 2-alternative forced-choice tasks: Accounting for both magnitude and difference effects.
Article in Cognitive psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dopamine and Temporal Discounting: Revisiting Pharmacology and Individual Differences.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Trial
- Article
- dynConfiR: An R package for sequential sampling models of decision confidence.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Congruency and distance effects vary across simultaneous and sequential two-digit integer, fraction, and decimal 2AFC tasks.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- A reinforcement learning and sequential sampling model constrained by gaze data.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Behavioral Signatures of Post-Decisional Attention in Preferential Choice.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficiency in redundancy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- "Reliable organisms from unreliable components" revisited: the linear drift, linear infinitesimal variance model of decision making.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
- Quantifying aberrant approach-avoidance conflict in psychopathology: A review of computational approaches.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023Review
- Magnitude-sensitive reaction times reveal non-linear time costs in multi-alternative decision-making.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Modeling evidence accumulation decision processes using integral equations: Urgency-gating and collapsing boundaries.Psychological review · 2022Article
- High-value decisions are fast and accurate, inconsistent with diminishing value sensitivity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- An initial 'snapshot' of sensory information biases the likelihood and speed of subsequent changes of mind.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Estimating systematic and random sources of variability in perceptual decision-making: A reply to Evans, Tillman, & Wagenmakers (2020).Psychological review · 2021Article
- Multi-Odor Discrimination by Rat Sniffing for Potential Monitoring of Lung Cancer and Diabetes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Neural Signature of Buying Decisions in Real-World Online Shopping Scenarios - An Exploratory Electroencephalography Study Series.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Examining aging and numerosity using an integrated diffusion model.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2020Article
- Modeling the interaction of numerosity and perceptual variables with the diffusion model.Cognitive psychology · 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.
Funding
Abstract
We present a model-based analysis of two-alternative forced-choice tasks in which two stimuli are presented side by side and subjects must make a comparative judgment (e.g., which stimulus is brighter). Stimuli can vary on two dimensions, the difference in strength of the two stimuli and the magnitude of each stimulus. Differences between the two stimuli produce typical RT and accuracy effects (i.e., subjects respond more quickly and more accurately when there is a larger difference between the two). However, the overall magnitude of the pair of stimuli also affects RT and accuracy. In the more common two-choice task, a single stimulus is presented and the stimulus varies on only one dimension. In this two-stimulus task, if the standard diffusion decision model is fit to the data with only drift rate (evidence accumulation rate) differing among conditions, the model cannot fit the data. However, if either of one of two variability parameters is allowed to change with stimulus magnitude, the model can fit the data. This results in two models that are extremely constrained with about one tenth of the number of parameters than there are data points while at the same time the models account for accuracy and correct and error RT distributions. While both of these versions of the diffusion model can account for the observed data, the model that allows across-trial variability in drift to vary might be preferred for theoretical reasons. The diffusion model fits are compared to the leaky competing accumulator model which did not perform as well.
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.