Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42557472›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Disentangling within- and between-subject correlations in cognitive models: The essential role of hierarchical estimation.

Michelle C Donzallaz, Niek Stevenson, Andrew Heathcote, Dora Matzke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Michelle C DonzallazPsychological Methods, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.c.donzallaz@uva.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6124-5528
Niek StevensonPsychological Methods, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3206-7544
Andrew HeathcotePsychological Methods, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4324-5537
Dora MatzkePsychological Methods, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1990-0175

Funding

Australia-US Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative AUSMURIV000003, ONR/DoD N00014-23-1-2792European Research Council Forstmann 864750Sociale en Geesteswetenschappen, NWO 016.vici.185.052, VI.Vidi.191.091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive models, such as evidence-accumulation models, are increasingly used in individual differences research in psychology and neuroscience. By computing correlations between cognitive model parameters across participants, researchers aim to understand how the psychological processes the parameters represent relate to one another and jointly determine performance. It is generally acknowledged that cognitive models can be challenging to estimate due to strong within-subject correlations among the parameters, which are embedded in the model's likelihood function. What is less often recognized, however, is that within-subject correlations can also distort correlations computed between parameters estimated with non-hierarchical methods, so they no longer reflect true individual differences, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. Here we illustrate this pitfall of non-hierarchical estimation and show how appropriately parameterized, descriptively adequate hierarchical models can mitigate the problem by effectively separating within- and between-subject sources of variation. We then offer recommendations for identifying and guarding against the inferential biases resulting from the strong within-subject correlations inherent in many cognitive models.

Indexed as

CognitionIndividualityModels, PsychologicalModels, StatisticalBayes TheoremHumansLikelihood FunctionsBayesian hierarchical modelingCognitive modelsCorrelationsEvidence-accumulation modelsIndividual differences

Identifiers

PMID42557472
PMCPMC13442499

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.