Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40019474›Full record

ArticleeLife2025

An image-computable model of speeded decision-making.

Paul I Jaffe, Gustavo X Santiago-Reyes, Robert J Schafer, Patrick G Bissett, Russell A Poldrack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Paul I JaffeDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0680-3923
Gustavo X Santiago-ReyesDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States.
Robert J SchaferLumos Labs, San Francisco, United States.
Patrick G BissettDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0854-9404
Russell A PoldrackDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence accumulation models (EAMs) are the dominant framework for modeling response time (RT) data from speeded decision-making tasks. While providing a good quantitative description of RT data in terms of abstract perceptual representations, EAMs do not explain how the visual system extracts these representations in the first place. To address this limitation, we introduce the visual accumulator model (VAM), in which convolutional neural network models of visual processing and traditional EAMs are jointly fitted to trial-level RTs and raw (pixel-space) visual stimuli from individual subjects in a unified Bayesian framework. Models fitted to large-scale cognitive training data from a stylized flanker task captured individual differences in congruency effects, RTs, and accuracy. We find evidence that the selection of task-relevant information occurs through the orthogonalization of relevant and irrelevant representations, demonstrating how our framework can be used to relate visual representations to behavioral outputs. Together, our work provides a probabilistic framework for both constraining neural network models of vision with behavioral data and studying how the visual system extracts representations that guide decisions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingReaction TimeVisual PerceptionAdultBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMaleNeural Networks, ComputerYoung Adultdecision-makingneural network modellingneurosciencenonevisual processing

Identifiers

PMID40019474
PMCPMC11870652

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.