ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2020
Vision for the blind: visual psychophysics and blinded inference for decision models.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The late positive component in recognition memory is linked to mnemonic evidence accumulation.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Parameter estimation of hyper-spherical diffusion models with a time-dependent threshold: An integral equation method.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Factorial variation of saccade vigor with dual decision processes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Investigating the potential psychological significance of the alpha parameter in the Lévy flight model of decision making: A reliability analysis approach.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Integrated Perceptual Decisions Rely on Parallel Evidence Accumulation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Support for the Time-Varying Drift Rate Model of Perceptual Discrimination in Dynamic and Static Noise Using Bayesian Model-Fitting Methodology.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The gated cascade diffusion model: An integrated theory of decision making, motor preparation, and motor execution.Psychological review · 2024Article
- Expressions for Bayesian confidence of drift diffusion observers in fluctuating stimuli tasks.Journal of mathematical psychology · 2023Article
- Article
- Modeling evidence accumulation decision processes using integral equations: Urgency-gating and collapsing boundaries.Psychological review · 2022Article
- Neurocomputational mechanisms of prior-informed perceptual decision-making in humans.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence accumulation models like the diffusion model are increasingly used by researchers to identify the contributions of sensory and decisional factors to the speed and accuracy of decision-making. Drift rates, decision criteria, and nondecision times estimated from such models provide meaningful estimates of the quality of evidence in the stimulus, the bias and caution in the decision process, and the duration of nondecision processes. Recently, Dutilh et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26, 1051-1069, 2019) carried out a large-scale, blinded validation study of decision models using the random dot motion (RDM) task. They found that the parameters of the diffusion model were generally well recovered, but there was a pervasive failure of selective influence, such that manipulations of evidence quality, decision bias, and caution also affected estimated nondecision times. This failure casts doubt on the psychometric validity of such estimates. Here we argue that the RDM task has unusual perceptual characteristics that may be better described by a model in which drift and diffusion rates increase over time rather than turn on abruptly. We reanalyze the Dutilh et al. data using models with abrupt and continuous-onset drift and diffusion rates and find that the continuous-onset model provides a better overall fit and more meaningful parameter estimates, which accord with the known psychophysical properties of the RDM task. We argue that further selective influence studies that fail to take into account the visual properties of the evidence entering the decision process are likely to be unproductive.
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.