SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2019
Response-time data provide critical constraints on dynamic models of multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice.
Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A two-phase diffusion process account of cross-location conflict processing during mental imagery.iScience · 2026Article
- Toward Generalizable Estimation of Behavioral Models with Parameter Dependencies.Psychometrika · 2026Article
- Overt Visual Attention in the Formation of Preference Between Complex Lottery Options.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
- The Tweedledum and Tweedledee of dynamic decisions: Discriminating between diffusion decision and accumulator models.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Mutual inclusivity improves decision-making by smoothing out choice's competitive edge.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- The attraction effect in perceptual decision-making: a case of dominance asymmetry.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Mutual inclusivity improves decision-making by smoothing out choice's competitive edge.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- PyBEAM: A Bayesian approach to parameter inference for a wide class of binary evidence accumulation models.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Framing Subjective Emotion Reports as Dynamic Affective Decisions.Affective science · 2023Review
- A robust Bayesian test for identifying context effects in multiattribute decision-making.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
- Modified leaky competing accumulator model of decision making with multiple alternatives: the Lie-algebraic approach.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Deviations of rational choice: an integrative explanation of the endowment and several context effects.Scientific reports · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the cognitive processes involved in multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice is of interest to a wide range of fields including psychology, neuroscience, and economics. Prior investigations in this domain have relied primarily on choice data to compare different theories. Despite numerous such studies, results have largely been inconclusive. Our study uses state-of-the-art response-time modeling and data from 12 different experiments appearing in six different published studies to compare four previously proposed theories/models of these effects: multi-alternative decision field theory (MDFT), the leaky-competing accumulator (LCA), the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA), and the associative accumulation model (AAM). All four models are, by design, dynamic process models and thus a comprehensive evaluation of their theoretical properties requires quantitative evaluation with both choice and response-time data. Our results show that response-time data is critical at distinguishing among these models and that using choice data alone can lead to inconclusive results for some datasets. In conclusion, we encourage future research to include response-time data in the evaluation of these models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30737646What 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.