Cited by 51Probability and Statistical ResearchDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

A note on the distribution of response times for a random walk with Gaussian increments

Smith, Philip L.·1990·Journal of Mathematical Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0022-2496(90)90023-3

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, P. L.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Smith, Philip L.
Venue
Journal of Mathematical Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1990-12
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
445-459
ISSN
0022-2496 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996463840
Cited by
51
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Mathematical Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
response time distribution, random walks, discrete time, goodness of fit

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review