Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34410765›Full record

ArticlePsychological review2022

Modeling evidence accumulation decision processes using integral equations: Urgency-gating and collapsing boundaries.

Philip L Smith, Roger Ratcliff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Bayesian confidence in optimal decisions.Psychological review · 2024
    Article
  9. Graded decisions in the human brain.Nature communications · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

2 authors.

Philip L SmithMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne.
Roger RatcliffDepartment of Psychology, The Ohio State University.ORCID 0000-0001-9657-0814

Funding

Toward using comprehensive decision-making models in neuropsychological testingR01AG041176 · NIA · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI MCKOON, GAIL A, RATCLIFF, ROGER · 2012 to 2021
$3.8M
Decision Making on Continuous Scales in Aging and Alzheimers DiseaseR01AG057841 · NIA · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI MCKOON, GAIL A, RATCLIFF, ROGER · 2020 to 2024
$2.5M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG041176NIA NIH HHS R01 AG057841
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diffusion models of evidence accumulation have successfully accounted for the distributions of response times and choice probabilities from many experimental tasks, but recently their assumption that evidence is accumulated at a constant rate to constant decision boundaries has been challenged. One model assumes that decision-makers seek to optimize their performance by using decision boundaries that collapse over time. Another model assumes that evidence does not accumulate and is represented by a stationary distribution that is gated by an urgency signal to make a response. We present explicit, integral-equation expressions for the first-passage time distributions of the urgency-gating and collapsing-bounds models and use them to identify conditions under which the models are equivalent. We combine these expressions with a dynamic model of stimulus encoding that allows the effects of perceptual and decisional integration to be distinguished. We compare the resulting models to the standard diffusion model with variability in drift rates on data from three experimental paradigms in which stimulus information was either constant or changed over time. The standard diffusion model was the best model for tasks with constant stimulus information; the models with time-varying urgency or decision bounds performed similarly to the standard diffusion model on tasks with changing stimulus information. We found little support for the claim that evidence does not accumulate and attribute the good performance of the time-varying models on changing-stimulus tasks to their increased flexibility and not to their ability to account for systematic experimental effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Decision MakingHumansReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID34410765
PMCPMC8857294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.