Modeling individual differences in response time and accuracy in numeracy
Open accessAbstract
In the study of numeracy, some hypotheses have been based on response time (RT) as a dependent variable and some on accuracy, and considerable controversy has arisen about the presence or absence of correlations between RT and accuracy, between RT or accuracy and individual differences like IQ and math ability, and between various numeracy tasks. In this article, we show that an integration of the two dependent variables is required, which we accomplish with a theory-based model of decision making. We report data from four tasks: numerosity discrimination, number discrimination, memory for two-digit numbers, and memory for three-digit numbers. Accuracy correlated across tasks, as did RTs. However, the negative correlations that might be expected between RT and accuracy were not obtained; if a subject was accurate, it did not mean that they were fast (and vice versa). When the diffusion decision-making model was applied to the data (Ratcliff, 1978), we found significant correlations across the tasks between the quality of the numeracy information (drift rate) driving the decision process and between the speed/accuracy criterion settings, suggesting that similar numeracy skills and similar speed-accuracy settings are involved in the four tasks. In the model, accuracy is related to drift rate and RT is related to speed-accuracy criteria, but drift rate and criteria are not related to each other across subjects. This provides a theoretical basis for understanding why negative correlations were not obtained between accuracy and RT. We also manipulated criteria by instructing subjects to maximize either speed or accuracy, but still found correlations between the criteria settings between and within tasks, suggesting that the settings may represent an individual trait that can be modulated but not equated across subjects. Our results demonstrate that a decision-making model may provide a way to reconcile inconsistent and sometimes contradictory results in numeracy research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
When contaminants are absent, the EZ-diffusion model performs as well as or better than more complex fitting routines.
“Therefore, we proceeded with the EZ-diffusion model, which performs as well or better than more complicated fitting routines when contaminants are not present (Ratcliff et al., 2015; van Ravenzwaaij and Oberauer, 2009).”
From The Dynamics of Functional Brain Networks: Integrated Network States during Cognitive Task Performance (2016) · cites this paper as Ratcliff et al., 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 77
- Authors
- Ratcliff, R., Thompson, C. A., & McKoon, G.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Kent State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ratcliff, Roger
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 137
- Pages
- 115-136
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4353499
- OpenAlex
- W2099949657
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 7.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG041176)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- numeracy, reaction time (psychology), accuracy, speed-accuracy trade-off, diffusion decision model, drift rate, individual differences, numerosity discrimination, number discrimination, number memory, decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Mathematics, Memory, Psychological Theory, Reaction Time, Young Adult
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