Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32232739›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2020

Quantifying the benefits of using decision models with response time and accuracy data.

Tom Stafford, Angelo Pirrone, Mike Croucher, Anna Krystalli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. When 2 become 1: Autistic simultaneity judgements about asynchronous audiovisual speech.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. What can evidence accumulation modelling tell us about human social cognition?Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Dopamine Alters the Effect of Brain Stimulation on Decision-Making.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Tom StaffordDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, 1 Vicar Lane, Sheffield, S1 2LT, UK. t.stafford@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8089-9479
Angelo PirroneCentre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Mike CroucherNumerical Algorithms Group Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Anna KrystalliResearch Software Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Response time and accuracy are fundamental measures of behavioral science, but discerning participants' underlying abilities can be masked by speed-accuracy trade-offs (SATOs). SATOs are often inadequately addressed in experiment analyses which focus on a single variable or which involve a suboptimal analytic correction. Models of decision-making, such as the drift diffusion model (DDM), provide a principled account of the decision-making process, allowing the recovery of SATO-unconfounded decision parameters from observed behavioral variables. For plausible parameters of a typical between-groups experiment, we simulate experimental data, for both real and null group differences in participants' ability to discriminate stimuli (represented by differences in the drift rate parameter of the DDM used to generate the simulated data), for both systematic and null SATOs. We then use the DDM to fit the generated data. This allows the direct comparison of the specificity and sensitivity for testing of group differences of different measures (accuracy, reaction time, and the drift rate from the model fitting). Our purpose here is not to make a theoretical innovation in decision modeling, but to use established decision models to demonstrate and quantify the benefits of decision modeling for experimentalists. We show, in terms of reduction of required sample size, how decision modeling can allow dramatically more efficient data collection for set statistical power; we confirm and depict the non-linear speed-accuracy relation; and we show how accuracy can be a more sensitive measure than response time given decision parameters which reasonably reflect a typical experiment.

Indexed as

CognitionDecision MakingReaction TimeBayes TheoremHumansProbabilityAccuracyDrift-diffusion modelResponse timeSpeed-accuracy trade-offStatistical power

Identifiers

PMID32232739
PMCPMC7575468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.